Skip to main content

Full text of "Congressional record"

See other formats


/ 


"S 



I* 


(\ 


m 




Title: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD; PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 
CONGRESS. 103RD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION. 
PERMANENT ED. 




Volume: 13 9 


Parts: 9-10 
PAGES: 11999-14998 


Date: MAY 28 - JUNE 30, 1993 



UMI Number: 2 56 9.00 
Note: 


REEL NO. 5 OF 6 


■v 
■ ■* 



UMI 

300 North Zeeb Road 
Ann Arbor, MI 48103 


VOL 
139 


PT 


.• 


_ w 


UNITED STATES 



OF AMERICA 


(Eonsressional Hecorfl 


PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE / 03'' CONGRESS 
■ • :> ^ FIRST SESSION 


VOLUME 139— PART 9 


MY 
28l 


JE 


21 


1993 





•■ ..X'> 


W 


UMI 


THE PAPER AND INK USED IN THE ORIGINAL 
PUBLICATION MAY AFFECT THE QUALITY OF 
THE MICORFORM EDITION. 


MAY 28, 1993 TO JUNE 21, 1993 
(PAGES 11999 TO 13449) 


UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1993 


69-059 (i— 97 Vol 139 (Pt. 9) 1 


UMI 


/ 


VOL 


139 


• I — -^ 


PT 


MY 


1993 


For sale by the US Government Printing Office. Ou ii t rintendenl of Documents. Mail Stop: SSOP. Washington. DC 20402-9328 



ConQreBsional 'Record 


United States 
of America 


d 


PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 10^ CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION 


SENATE— Friday', May 28, 1993 


The Senate met at 8:45 a.m., on the 
expiration of the recess, and was called 
to order by the Honorable Dianne Fein- 
stein, a Senator from the State of Cali- 
fornia. 


PRAYER 

The Chaplain, the Reverend Richard 
C. Halverson, D.D., offered the follow- 
ing prayer: 

Let us pray: 

Father in Heaven, the Apostle Paul 
begins his instructions to the family 
with these words: "'Submitting your- 
selves one to another in the fear of 
God. ' (Ephesians 5:21) Far too often we 
fail in this because of other demands to 
which we give precedence. Time-con- 
suming work responsibility possesses 
us, and our families are neglected. Re- 
cess periods also can be filled with 
work, and the family is deprived of Xo- 
getherness. 

God of love, who "set the solitary in 
families," help us to give priority to 
spouse and children during the recess. 
Grant that it shall be a time of rec- 
onciliation and healing. Help the Sen- 
ators to find time, take time, make 
time, for their loved ones and for them- 
selves in quiet, peaceful, solitary mo- 
ments. 

We pray in His name who invited us 
to "Come unto me, all yefthat labour 
and are heavy laden, and I will give 
you rest." (Matthew 11:28) Amen. 


APPOINTMENT OF ACTING 
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will please read a communication 
to the Senate from the President pro 
tempore [Mr. Byrd]. 
, The assistant legislative clerk read 
the following letter: , 

U.S. Sen.ate. 
President pro tempore. 
Washington. DC. May 28. 1993. 
To the Senate: 

Under the provisions of rule I. section 3. of 
the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby 
appoint the Honorable Dianne Feixstein. a 


(Legislative day of Monday, April 19, 1993) 

Senator from the State of California, to per- 
form the duties of the chair. 

Robert C. Byrd. 

President pro tempore. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN thereupon assumed 
the Chair as Acting President pro tem- 
pore. 


RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. Under the previous order the 
leadership time is reserved. 


MORNING BUSINESS 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. There will now be a period for 
morning business not to extend beyond 
the hour of 10 a.m., with Senators per- 
mitted to speak therein for not to ex- 
ceed 5 minutes each. 

Under the previous order, the Sen- 
ator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] is rec- 
ognized to speak for up to 10 minutes: 
the Senator from Washington [Mrs. 
Murray] is recognized to speak for up 
to 10 minutes; the Senator from Texas 
[Mr. Gramm] is recognized to speak for 
up to 10 minutes; the Senator from 
Mississippi [Mr. Lott] is recognized to 
speak for up to 45 minutes; and the 
Senator from Connecticut [Mr. 
LiEBERMAN] is recognized to speak for 
up to 5 minutes. 

The Senator from Iowa is recognized. 


FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT IN 
THE AIR FORCE 

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I 
am here to address the issue of finan- 
cial mismanagement in Air Force pro- 
grams. I have spoken several times in 
recent months about this breakdown of 
discipline and fiscal integrity in finan- 
cial management at the Department of 
Defense and, of course, I am particu- 
larly concerned, again today, as I. have 
stated before, about financial manage- 
ment in the Air Force. 

Billions of dollars of taxpayers" 
money, what was appropriated for Air 
Force money, is unaccounted for. The 


Comptroller General Bowsher recently 
warned Secretary Aspin that Air Force 
monetary resources are vulnerable to 
"fraud, waste, and mismanagement." 
And I also want to put in here that I 
think that they are vulnerable to theft. 
The ongoing embezzlement case of ta 
low-level accountant, James Lugas, kt 
Reese AFB, TX, bears out my point. I 
will be on the floor later. this summer 
to speak more about that matter. 

Madam President, on April 30, I 
talked about a specific case study of 
Air Force financial mismanagement — 
the case of the advance cruise missile, 
or ACM. 

Since I made that speech, the Air 
Force has agreed to conduct an inves- 
tigation into allegations of financial 
misconduct in the program. 

However. Madam President, in the 
wake of the Air Force reinvestigation 
of the inspector general's investigation 
of the C-17 program, quite frankly, I 
have no confidence in the outcome. I 
am not confident in the Air Force's 
ability to investigate itself. I am not 
confident that the investigation will be 
impartial and thorough; that it will be 
brought to a prompt and decisive con- 
clusion; and that those responsible will 
be held accountable. 

I am not confident because the Air 
Force continues to stonewall on the 
issue. The Air Force is using delaying 
tactics and refusing to answer my 
questions. 

During a recent meeting that I had 
with Acting Air Force Secretary 
Donley, he promised to provide me 
with the informsflion I need to make a 
decision on the promotion of the 
former ACM program manager. Col. 
Claude Bolton. While that meeting was 
in progress, the Air Force left a letter 
in my office that told me to "take a 
hike" and that I would receive no more 
information on the subject. 

Madam President, I ask unanimous 
consent to print several pieces of cor- 
respondence in the Record. 

There being no objection, the cor- 
respondence was ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows: 


This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spniken by a member of the Senate on the floor. 

11999 


12000 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12001 


VOL 
1391 


MY 

28 


JE 


21 


1993 


Department of the Air Force. 

Washington. DC. May 25. 1993. 
Hon. Ch.'^rles E. Grassley. 
U.S. Senate. 
Washington. DC. 

Dear Se.n.^tor Grassley: This re.sponds to 
your 25 May 1993 letter. The investigation to 
which you referred was initiated by the As- 
sistant Secretary of the Air Force for Finan- 
cial Management and Comptroller, through 
the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. 
Denver. Colorado, on 23 April 1993. The inves- 
tigating officer is Mr. William Maikisch. who 
is currently the Director of Resource Man- 
agement for the Space and Missile System 
Center at Los Angeles. California. He began 
work of the investigation on 17 May 1993. 

The investigation process is being con- 
ducted in two phases. Phase one. to be com- 
pleted within the next month, will determine 
if an Antideficiency Act violation occurred 
on the Advanced Cruise Missile program. If 
it is determined that such a violation oc- 
curred, the second phase of the investigation 
will determine the individuals responsible 
for the violation and the appropriate dis- 
ciplinary action. This will be followed by the 
preparation and coordination of a report of 
violation. If a violation is determined to 
have occurred, we anticipate completion by 
about 15 September 1993. Of course, if no vio- 
lation is determined to have occurred the 
process would be completed earlier. 
Sincerely. 

Pall E. Stei.n. 
Major General. USAF. 
Director, Legislative Liaison. 

U.S. Se.n.ate. 
Washington. DC. May 25. 1993. 
Maj. Gen. P.\ul E. Stein. 
Director. Office of Legislative Liaison. Depart- 
ment of the Air Force, Pentagon. Washing- 
ton, DC. 

Dear General .Stein: I am writing in re- 
sponse to your letter of May 24. 1993. and 
about my unanswered letters to Mr. Smith 
and Colonel Bolton dated April 29. 1993. and 
to Mr. Beach dated May 14. 1993. and a series 
of unanswered questions submitted on May 
12. 1993. 

As I stated in my letter to Mr. Beach. I ex- 
pect a signed, written response to each piece 
of correspondence. Anything short of that is 
unacceptable. 

In your letter, you state: "the Acting Sec- 
retary of the Air Force [Donley] has directed 
a full review of alleged violations of the 
Antideficiency Act in the Advanced Cruise 
Missile program in accordance with the 
law." 

Clearly. I do not want to jeopardize the on- 
going investigation or prejudice the results 
of that process. 

At the same time. I would like to feel con- 
fident that the investigation is conducted in 
an impartial and thorough manner, that it is 
brought to a decisive and prompt conclusion, 
and that those responsible are held account- 
able. 

Toward that end. I would like the answers 
to two questions before the close of business 
today: (1) Who is the investigating officer 
(name. rank, and position)?; and (2) When is 
the investigation expected to be completed? 

Your cooperation would be appreciated. 
Sincerely, 

Charles E. Grassley. 

U.S. Senator. 


Department of the Air Force. 

Washington. DC, May 24, 1993. 
Hon. CHARLES E. Grassley. 
U.S. Senate. 
Washington. DC. 

Dear Senator Grassley: This correspond- 
ence further responds to your letter of 29 
April to Colonel Claude M. Bolton Jr. and 
Mr. E. Ray Smith, and to your 14 May letter 
to Mr. John W. Beach. As Mr. Beach pointed 
out in his letter, the Acting Secretary of the 
.^ir Force has directed a full review of al- 
leged violations of the .■Vntideficiency Act in 
the Adva^nced Cruise Missile program in ac- 
cordance with the law. As we're sure you will 
agree, we do not want to jeopardize this on- 
going investigation or pnejudvce its results. 
In the interest of achieving a fair and (jpm- 
plete investigation. we believe the 
Antideficiency Act review itself should be 
the sole fact gathering process. 

At the conclusion of the official inquiry. 
we will ensure that your concerns are ad- 
dressed and responses are provided to your 
questions. However, until the investig^ion 
is concluded we would , respectfully s??k 
agreement that Colonel Bolton and Mr. 
Smith refrain from answering questions on 
this subject outside of the investigative 
process. Allowing the investigation to pro- 
ceed without outside influence is the best 
method of ascertaining the facts, while pro- 
tecting the rights of the individuals in- 
volved. 

Sincerely, 

Pall E. Stein. 
Major General. USAF. 
Director, Legislative Liaison. 

U.S. Senate. 
Washington. DC. May 14. 1993. 
Mr. John w. Beach, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secreta^ for Finan- 
cial .Management. Department of the Air 
Force, Pentagon, Washington, DC. 

Dear Mr. Beach: I am writing in response 
to your letter of May 13. 1993. regarding the 
current disposition of my letters of April 29. 
1993, to Mr. E. Ray Smith and Colonel Claude 
M. Bolton. Jr. 

The two above-mentioned letters were di- 
rected to Mr. Smith and Colonel Bolton and 
not to your office. I expect a written, signed 
response from both officials. Anything short 
of that is unacceptable. 

At the same time. I would like to urge you 
to proceed with a vigorous and thorough in- 
vestigation of the Antideficiency Act viola- 
tion by the Advanced Cruise Missile (.\CM) 
program and fix responsibility as required by 
law. 

Since directing my letter to Mr. Smith. I 
have come to the realization that his organi- 
zation falls under the purview of your office. 
That being the case. I would like to inquire 
about your knowledge and awareness of a 
violation of the Antideficiency Act by the 
ACM program in November 1991 or at any 
other time. 

I have two questions I would like you to 
answer: 

At or about the time Mr. Smith signed the 
attached memoranda, were you aware of any 
discussion about the need to report a viola- 
tion of the Antideficiency Act by the ACM 
program? If so. please provide the names of 
the persons involved in those discussions or 
the violation itself, and what direction, if 
any, was given as^a result of those discus- 
.sions? 

A written, signed response to my questions 
is requested \iy May 21, 1993. 

I would like to remind you that certain fi- 
nancial officers remain pecuniarily liable 


under the law (31 U.S.C, 3528) for illegal or 
improper payments from accounts entrusted 
to their care. 

I would also like to inform you that during 
my meeting with Mr. Donley yesterday, he 
indicated that Colonel Bolton is not solely 
re.sponsible for the decisions taken to resolve 
the ACM funding deficiencies in 1991-92. Mr. 
Donley indicated _that there were a number 
of more senior officials further up the chain 
Of command who bear responsibility for 
those actions. I asked him to provide that 
and any other information that might help 
me reath a final decision in this matter. He 
agreed t9 do that. 

Your cooperation would be appreciated. 
Sincerely. 

Charles E. Grassley. 

U.S. Senator. 

Department of the Air Force, 
Washington. DC. .Wovember 26. 1991. 
Memorandum for SAF FMBMC. 
Subject: Request for Approval to Cite Ex- 
pired Funds— Action Memorandum. 
This office has received the attached re- 
quest for funding and approval to cite 
$71.500.0O0.(X) of FY 87 3020 funds to cover cost 
overruns associated with the Advanced 
Crui.se Missile program. Based on previous 
discussions with the 3020 Appropriation Man- 
ager, funding of this magnitude is not pres- 
ently available. However, this requirement 
needs to be documented and included in the 
funding strategy discussions being pursued 
for this and other programs with similar 
funding problems. 

The attached ASD \'CP memo describes 
the scope and nature of the request for ad- 
justment as well as the information regard- 
ing the original contract funding Please in- 
clude this action with other unclassified re- 
quests for prior year 3020 funding. 

E. Ray Smith. 
Special Programs Office, Deputy for Budget 
Management and Execution. 

Departme.vt of the AIR Force, 
Washington. DC, Sovember 26, 1991. 
Memorandum for SAF FMBMC. 
Subject: Request for Approval to Cite Ex- 
pired Funds — Action Memorandum. 
This office has received the attached re- 
quest for funding and approval to cite 
$27,100,000.00 of FY 88 3020 funds to cover cost 
overruns associated with the Advanced 
Cruise Missile program. Based on previous 
discussions with the 3020 Appropriation Man- 
ager, funding of this magnitude is not pres- 
ently available. However, this requirement 
needs to Be documented and included in the 
funding strategy discussions being pursued 
for this and other programs with similar 
funding problems. 

The attached ASD VCP memo describes 
the scope and nature of the request for ad- 
justment as well as the information regard- 
ing the original contract funding. Please in- 
clude this action with other unclassified re- 
quests for prior year 3020 funding. 

E. Ray Smith, 
Special Programs Office, Deputy for Budget 
Management and Execution. 

Department of the Air Force, 

Washington, DC, May 13, 1993. 
Hon. Charles E. Grassley, 
U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Building, Washington, 
DC. 
Dear Senator Grassley: Your letters to 
Colonel Bolton and Mr. Smith, both dated 
April 29. 1993. have been referred to this of- 
fice for response. In an effort to ensure that 
all the facts and relevant decisions on the 


Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM) program are This office has received the attached re- 
made known, the Acting Secretary of the Air quest for funding and approval to cite 
Force has directed a full review of potential $27,100,000.00 of FY 87 3020 funds to cover cost 
violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act in ac- 6verruns associated with the Advanced 


cordance with the law and implementing 
regulations. The results of this investigation 
and any recommendations will be provided 
to the appropriate o.fficials in the Adminis- 
tration and Congress. The investigation re- 
sults should provide the information you re- 
quested of Colonel Bolton and Mr. Smith. 

Sincerely. 

John W. Beach. 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

Air Force (Financial Management). 

U.S. Senate, 
Washington. DC. April 29. 1993. 
Mr. E. Ray Smith, 

Special Programs Office. Directorate for Budget 
Management and Execution. Pentagon. De- 
partment of the Air Force. Washington. DC. 

Dear Mr. Smith: -i am writing to inquire 
about your knowledge and awareness of a 
violation of the Antideficiency Act (31 USC 
1341) by the Advanced Cruise Missile pro- 
gram. 

I raise the question because of your signa- 
ture on the attached memoranda, dated No- 
vember 26. 1991. You state in those docu- 
ments that there were insufficient funds in 
the FY 1987 and 1988 missile procurement ap- 
propriation accounts to cover "contract re- 
quirements" for the Advanced Cruise Missile 
program thit were chargeable to those ac- 
counts. 

I have two questions I would like you to 
answer: 

At or about the time you signed the at- 
tached memoranda, were you aware of any 
discussion about the need to report a viola- 
tion of the Antideficiency Act? If so. please 
provide the names of those involved in those 
discussions and what direction, if any. was 
given as a result of those discussions? 

A written, signed response to these ques- 
tions is requested by May 7. 1993. 

Your cooperation would be appreciated. 
Sincerely. * 

Charles E. Grassley, 

U.S. Senator. 

Department of the air Force, 
Washington. DC, November 26, 1991. 
Memorandum for SAF FMBMC. 
Subject: Request for Approval to Cite Ex- 
pired Funds — Action Memorandum. 
This office has received the attached re- 
quest for funding and approval to cite 
$71,500,000.00 of FY 87 3020 funds to cover cost 
overruns associated with the Advanced 
Cruise Missile program. Based on previous 
discussions with the 3020 Appropriation Man- 
ager, funding of this magnitude is not pres- 
ently available. However, this requirement 
needs to be documented and included in the 
funding strategy discussions being pursued 
for this and other programs with similar 
funding problems. 

The attached ASD VCP memo describes 
the scope and nature of the request for ad- 
justment as well as the information regard- 
ing the original contract funding. Please in- 
clude this action with other unclassified re- 
quests for prior year 3020 funding. 

E. Ray S.mith. 
Special Programs Office, Deputy for Budget 
Management and Execution. 

' " Department of the air Force, 

Washington, DC, November 26, 1991. 
Memorandum for SAF'FMBMC. 
Subject: Request for Approval to Cite Ex- 
pired Funds— Action Memorandum. 


Cruise Missile program. Based on previous 
discussions with the 3020 Appropriation Man- 
ager, funding of this magnitude is not pres- 
ently available. However, this requirement 
needs to be documented and included in the 
funding strategy discussions being pursued 
for this and other programs with similar 
funding problems. 

The attached ASD'VCP ^emo describes 
the scope and nature of the request for ad- 
justment asMvell as the information regard- 
ing the original contract funding. Please in- 
clude this action with other unclassified re- 
quests for prior year 3020 funding. 

E. Ray Smith, 
Special Programs Office. Deputy for Budget 
.Management and Execution. 

U.S. Senate. 
Washington, DC, April 29. 1993. 
Col. Claude M. Bolton, Jr., 
Commandtint. Defense Systems Management 
College, Fort Belvoir. VA. 

Dear Colonel Bolton: I am writing to in- 
quire about your knowledge and awareness 
of a violation of the Antideficiency Act (31 
USC 1341) by the Advanced Cruise Missile 
program. 

I have 7 questions I would like to ask you 
about a violation of the Antideficiency Act 
by the Advanced Cruise Missile program dur- 
ing your tenure as program manager. The 
questions follow: 

When did you recognize that the cost to 
complete the FY 1987 and 1988 .KCM contracts 
exceeded the amounts available in the FY 
1987 and 1988 missile procurement appropria- 
tions accounts? 

When did the dollar value of "contract 
work authorized" exceed "funding author- 
ized" on either contract? 

What steps did you take to obtain addi- 
tional funding? 

What actions did you take to report the 
violation of the Antideficiency Act "through 
official channels to the head of the DOD 
cornponent involved" as required by DOD Di- 
rective 7200.1 and statutor>' law (31 USC 
1351)? (Provide a list of persons you con- 
tacted) 

Why did you allow work to continue on the 
FY 1987 and 1988 contracts once you realized 
there was insufficient money available to 
pay outstanding bills? 

Were you aware of the potential for incur- 
ring additional costs to the government 
through cancellation and reprocurement of 
the ACM contracts and to whpm did you re- 
port that concern? 

On March 25, 1992. Secretary Rice approved 
the ACM reprocurement plan to cover the, 
cost overrun on the old contracts with FY 
1992 appropriations. At any point, did you 
recommend that the ACM cost overrun bE 
handled in more appropriate ways? 

A written, signed response to these ques- 
tions is requested by May 7, 1993. 

Your cooperation would be appreciated. 
Sincerely, 

Charles E. Grassley, 

U.S. Senator. 

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, 
the Air Force really provides a flimsy 
excuse for not answering the mail. 

Madam President, I would like to 
talk briefly about a letter from Maj. 
Gen. Paul E. Stein, Director of the Air 
Force Office of Legislative Affairs 
dated May 25, 1993. 


General Stein states that the first 
phase of the investigation of the 
Antideficiency Act violation "will de- 
termine if an Antideficiency Act viola- 
tion occurred on the Advanced Cruise 
Missile Program." 

Well, General Stein, the first phase of 
the investigation is already over. To 
repeat, what you want to do. General 
Stein, will be duplicative and wasteful. 
I refer General Stein to page 24 of the 
inspector general's [IG] audit report 
No. 93-053 entitled "Missile Procure- 
ment Appropriations, Air Force," 
dated February 12, 1993. Based on a 
thorough review of all pertinent facts, 
the inspector general reached this con- 
clusion: "The Antideficiency Act was 
violated when the Air Force recognized 
that the cost to complete the ACM had 
exceeded amounts available for obliga- 
tions, but permitted work to con- 
tinue. * * * The Antideficiency Act 
has been violated." 

General Stein, the inspector gen- 
eral s findings are crystal clear. They 
are conclusive. The time has come to 
fix responsibility. 

I am afraid the Air Force will decide 
no violation occurred. If that happens. 
General Stein, I ask to be informed im- 
mediately. 

Senior Air Force officials, including 
Mr. Donley, have known about the vio- 
lation for a long time but did abso- 
lutely nothing about it. 

Senior officials in Mr. Donley"s office 
were briefed by the Inspector General's 
Office on the violation on June 9, 1992. 
That was almost 1 year ago. Under De- 
partment of Defense [DOD] Directive 
7200.1, which governs procedures for re- 
porting violations of the 
Antideficiency Act, the Air Force 
should have submitted an interim re- 
port to the DOD Comptroller by De- 
cember 9, 1992 — if not sooner. An in- 
terim report is required if it is not pos- 
sible to complete the investigation and 
submit a final report within 6 months 
of discovering, simply discovering, the 
violation. The Air Force has not filed 
an interim report as required. 

Madam President. I ask unanimous 
consent to print a blank copy of the in- 
terim report form in the Record. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed ip the 
"Record, as follows: 

Interim Report For.mat for Slspected 
Violations Under Investigation 

Interim • reports of suspected or apparent 
violations of subsections 1341(a), 1517(a), or 
section 1342 of 31 U.S.C. (reference (b)) shall 
set forth the following data: 

A. Name, addressr; and telephone number of 
investigating officer and of the officer re- 
sponsible for authorizing the investigation. 

B. The type of suspected violation, sub- 
sections 1341(a), 1517(a), or section 1342. 

C. The location at which the suspected vio- 
lation occurred. 

D. The amount of the suspected violation 
(dollars and cents). 

E. The date of occurrence _and date of dis- 
covery. 

F. A brief narrative description of the na- 
ture of the suspected violation, including a 


UMI 


12002 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


clear, concise explanation of causes and cir- 
cumstances, insofar as they can be deter- 
mined. 

Follow-on quarterly progress reports de- 
scribe in detail investigative actions taken 
since the previous interim- report to the 
ASD(C). and explain the nature of any issues 
to be resolved before a final report can be 
submitted. 

Mr. GRASSLEY. General Stein, when 
is the Air Force planning to file an in- 
terim report in compliance with the 
DOD Directive 7200.1? 

The Air Force's failure to file an in- 
terim report is an accurate reflection 
of the service's attitude toward this 
violation. In the Air Force view, the 
violation never happened. If it never 
happened, then it is hard to discover. 
This attitude is unacceptable and 
President Clinton, as Commander in 
Chief, must not tolerate it. 

I am talking about a failure to report 
a known violation of the Anti- 
deficiency Act. The Comptroller Gen- 
eral has rendered an important legal 
opinion on this issue. In a document 
dated August 11, 1992 and identified by 
the numbers B-245856.7, the Comptrol- 
ler General stated; 

The failure to disclose known violations of 
the Antideflciency Act is a felony and can be 
the subject of disciplinary actions. 

I also believe the Air Force may have 
attempted to conceal the violation by 
failing to record overobligations in the 
books and laundering the bills through 
crooked reprocurement schemes. 

Those who knowingly and willfully 
violate these laws can be fined and sent 
to jail. They can be suspended from 
duty withput pay or removed from of- 
fice. 

General Stein, I ask that the inves- 
tigation examine the question of 
whether anyone in the chain of com- 
mand — from Colonel Bolton up through 
Mr. Beach. Mr. Donley, and Mr. Rice — 
knew that the ACM Program was in 
violation of the Antideflciency Act and 
either failed to report it or attempted 
to conceal it. 

General Stein, you indicate that Mr, 
William Maikisch has been designated 
as the investigating officer on the ACM 
case. Did you know. General Stein, 
that as the Director of Resource Man- 
agement for the Space and Missile Sys- 
tem Center. Mr. Maikisch may have 
been involved in managing money for 
the Titan IV Program. The Titan IV 
Program is also under investigation. It 
is the subject of another devastating 
report by the inspector general, audit 
report No. 92-064, dated March 31, 1992. 
This report is about blatant financial 
mismanagement and misconduct. 

General Stein^Js Mr. Maikisch in any 
way implicatedMn the Antideflciency 
Act violation by the Titan IV Program 
or the violation of section 1301 of title 
31 of the U.S. code described in audit 
report 92-064? 

I cannot ride herd on the Air Force 
by myself. I need help. 

I would like the Air Force to answer 
my questions. 


I would like the DOD IG to follow 

through on its audit and make sure the 
Air Force conducts the investigation 
and fixes responsibility where it be- 
longs— ^11 the way up to the Secretary 
of the Air Force if necessary. 

The General Accounting Office needs 
to come forward with information it 
has on the cancellation of fiscal years 
1990 and 1991 ACM contracts as a way 
to generate cash to cover the cost over- 
run on earlier contracts. The GAO 
needs to share the information it has 
that shows how hundreds of millions of 
dollars worth of unfinished ACM mis- 
siles have been discarded as scrap and 
left as waste. 

It is time to send a message to the 
DOD acquisition and financial man- 
agers. Those who violate the laws of 
our land will be held accountable. 

A few tough lessons in accountability 
will bring this misconduct to a screech- 
ing halt. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The Senator from Delaware. 

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I yield 
myself such time as I will take from 
that allotted to the distinguished Sen- 
ator from Mississippi. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The Senator is recognized. 

Mr. ROTH. I thank the Chair. 

(The remarks of Mr. RoTH, Mr. LOTT, 
Mr. Dole, and Mr. Burns pertaining to 
the introduction of S. 1058 are located 
in today's Record under "Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolu- 
tions.") 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The Senator from Texas. 


THE PRESIDENTS TAX BILL 

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I 
knew the Democrats were going to win 
the tax vote in the House. I knew that 
with their huge margin in House mem- 
bership that they were going to pass 
the President's tax bill in the House. 

I do not understand why then this 
morning I felt down about it given that 
they passed their bill 219 to 213, which 
means . almost 40 Democrats voted 
against the Presidents tax plan. 

I guess part of it is recognition that 
yesterday in the House we had the tri- 
umph of partisan policies over reason 
and over the public interest. I think 
part of the reason why I am concerned 
is because I realize that the U.S. Sen- 
ate stands today as the only sentry at 
the gate. We are the last thing that 
stands between America and a massive 
tax increase that will put hundreds of 
thousands and ultimately millions of 
our fellow citizens out of work, that 
will raise taxes on Social Security re- 
cipients, working families, small busi- 
ness, and that will devastate the econ- 
omy. That is the bad news. 

The good news is that we have a lot 
of good gatekeepers in the Senate, and 


I for one am absolutely committed to 
seeing that Bill Clinton's tax-and- 
spend policy does not become the law 
of the land. 

One of the things that concerns me 
greatly about the debate in the House 
is the continued gulf between the rhet- 
oric of the debate and the reality of the 
programs that are being proposed. 

I have here a chart that really sum- 
marizes what I believe is an incredible 
chain of events leading up to yester- 
day's vote. And I think one of the rea- 
sons that the American people feel 
alienated, feel betrayed, is because of 
this huge difference between what is 
being said in Washington and what is 
being done in Washington. 

Everybody will remember that dur- 
ing the Clinton campaign President 
Clinton was going to cut spending S3 
for every dollar of new taxes. That was 
the whole basis of President Clinton's 
campaign. And then when Leon Pa- 
netta was before the Senate to be con- 
firmed as OMB Director he said their 
goal was $2 in spending cuts for every 
dollar of taxes, and then when Presi- 
dent Clinton came before the Congress 
and gave that great State of the Union 
Address, an address that I could have 
given, because it had virtually nothing 
to do with the President's program, it 
was $1 of spending cuts for every dollar 
of taxes. Then when we adopted the 
President's budget in the Congress, 
when the Congressional Budget Office, 
the official scorer, jury and judge des- 
ignated bjr the President, totaled up 
taxes and spending, it concluded that 
there were $3.23 of taxes of every dollar 
for spending cuts. And now into the bill 
that the House has voted on and made 
changes in permanent law to imple- 
ment that tax program we are up to $5 
in taxes for every dollar of spending 
cuts. 

That is a far cry from the original 
promise. That is a far cry from the con- 
tinued advertising, but it is the cold 
and hard reality of what we are look 
ing at. 

Another thing that disturbs me about 
the House vote is the continued effort 
to mislead the American people. Noth- 
ing could have been clearer than the 
final compromise whereby the Presi- 
dent designates how much he thinks all 
these entitlement programs ought to 
grow by and then if they grow by more 
than that the President says to Con- 
gress we ought to pay for it by raising 
taxes, or says we ought to pay for it by 
decreasing spending, or says we ought 
to pay for it by borrowing money, and 
then Congress votes on it. But if they 
vote it down, whatever the President 
proposes, the deficit goes up and we 
borrow the money to pay for it. 

I do not think we need to give Bill 
Clinton another excuse to propose an- 
other tax. In fact, we have additional 
taxes being proposed or floated each 
and every week. 

Finally, I want to go back and look 
at these deficits, because if I get asked 


May 28, 1993 

one question over and over again the 
question I am asked is, Are we cutting 
spending first? I am sure that the Pre- 
siding Officer has had people come up 
to her in the airport and say, are you 
cutting spending first? 

Let me go back and look at the 
President's budget. What I have done 
on the chart here is plot out in red the 
tax increases and in blue the spending 
cuts. What you see that under the 
President's budget beginning on Octo- 
ber 1, when that budget would go- into 
effect, what happens is that through 
1995 spending actually rises and before 
the first dollar of net spending cuts 
goes into effect taxes have gone up by 
$90 billion: 80 percent of all the savings 
that are contained in the President's 
budget are savings that are promised in 
1997 and 1988. 

So the answer to the question, are 
you cutting spending first, is "No." In 
fact, taxes are going up by $90 billion 
over the next 3 years before a net 
penny of savings occurs and 80 percent 
of the savings in the package are prom- 
ised in 2 years where Bill Clinton may 
not be President. In fact, if this eco- 
nomic plan passes he almost certainly 
will not be President. 

Finally, we continually have a prob- 
lem which the President warned us of 
and in the State of the Union Address, 
urged us to avoid, and here I want to 
make it totally clear I agree with the 
President's rhetoric; I do not agree 
with the reality of what he is doing. In 
the State of the Union Address the 
President said: Let us do not argue 
about the numbers, let us let the Con- 
gressional Budget Office do the scoring. 
Let us make them the judge and the 
jury. Then we can debate policy and we 
will not be wasting our time disputing 
numbers. 

This is what the Congressional Budg- 
et Office, the judge and the jury, says 
about the Clinton economic plan. On 
page 6 of chapter 1 in CBO's March 
analysis of the President's budget we 
have the following quote. "Three-quar- 
ters of the $355 billion in cumulative 
deficit reduction contained in the ad- 
ministration's program would stem 
from increases in revenues and only 
one-quarter from cuts in outlays." 

Now, Madam President, that is the 
Congressional Budget Office. This is 
the entity that the President des- 
ignated to be the judge and the jury. 
And yet why does the President con- 
tinue to say day after day after day 
that his budget reduces spending a dol- 
lar for every dollar of tax increases 
when, in fact, the judge and the jury 
that the President picked says three- 
quarters of his deficit reduction comes 
from new taxes and only one-quarter 
comes from reductions in spending? 

Also on page 6 of its analysis the 
Congressional Budget Office says: "The 
spending increases would exceed the 
cuts through 1995." 

So, basically. Madam President, we 
are down to a decision and that is, do 

I 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12003 


we believe that we can promote pros- 
perity in America by increasing taxes, 
by not cutting any spending for the 
next 3 years, and then promising to do 
in 1997 and 1998, in the sweet by-and-by, 
all these good things. 

I want to say here today that we are 
going to defeat the Btu tax in the U.S. 
Senate. Right here on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate we are going to defeat the 
effort to raise taxes on Social Security. 

And I am hopeful, when we beat the 
Btu tax, when we beat the Social Secu- 
rity tax. that we can force the Presi- 
dent to do what all Americans want 
him to do. and that is come back to 
Congress, sit down with Democrats and 
Republicans, and cut spending first. 

I yield the fioor. 

Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The Senator from Alaska. 

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. 

(The remarks of Mr. Stevens per- 
taining to the introduction of S. 1059 
are located in today's Record under 
"Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.") 


THE BTU TAX 


Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I 
listened with interest in recent days to 
my good friend, the Vice President of 
the United States, Vice President 
Gore, who indicated that one of the 
reasons for the Btu tax was to back off 
the dependency of Americans on for- 
eign oil. 

I come from Alaska, which produces 
25 percent of all the oil that is pro- 
duced in the United States. We do not 
use foreign oil in Alaska. We produce 25 
percent of all that is domestically pro- 
duced. Yet when we have studied the 
Btu tax, we find it to be the cruelest 
tax that has been devised for people 
that live in cold country. 

Alaskans will carry the heaviest bur- 
den from the Btu tax. notwithstanding 
the fact that we have the capability of 
increasing the supply of domestically 
produced oil, if only those who oppose 
drilling on the Arctic plain would real- 
ize that the way to back off foreign oil 
is to be more reliant on our own re- 
sources. 

I have done some studies of the im- 
pact of the Btu tax on Alaska and I 
would like to share them with the Sen- 
ate. 

Estimates of the cost of the Btu tax 
to the average household in Alaska 
range from $844 to $1,521 annually. For 
the rest of the Nation, the average Btu 
tax burden for households will be an es- 
timated $266 to $471. In other words, 
Alaskans are at least three times more 
burdened by this tax than any other 
State. 

In Alaska, the per capita cost of the 
Btu tax has been calculated by our peo- 
ple at $280 per person — man, woman, 
and child— per year. That, as I said, is 
more than the average for households 


in the south 48. Nationally, the Btu tax 
will run somewhere around $97 per per- 
son. 

The difficulty with the Btu tax for 
me is that the people who will be hard- 
est hit in our State by the Btu tax are 
those who can least afford it. Our Alas- 
kan Native people who live in rural 
areas, some 210 to 230 villages, use die- 
sel to generate electricity. Diesel fuel 
is not home heating fuel. Home heating 
fuel is exempt in the bill that was 
passed by the House, as I understand it. 
There is no similar exemption for die- 
sel fuel used to heat homes and gen- 
erate electricity in Alaska. 

I am told that there is an exemption 
in the House bill for No. 2 diesel and for 
home heating fuel. We use No. 1 diesel. 
We do not know all of the final details 
of what came out pf th'e House bill yes- 
terday. I know that there are exemp- 
tions over there- and deals weqe made. 
But, they do not represent relief for 
those who are the hardest hit in the 
Nation— the Native people who live in 
rural Alaska. 

Not only will they pay the full 6tu 
tax but, because of the extremely low 
temperatures that they suffer in the 
winter time — 60 below zero — they pay 
more than any other American to heat 
their homes to begin with. 

The devastating effect of this Btu tax 
on Alaskan Native people is really ap-' 
parent when we realize that the aver- 
age annual income for a family of four 
in western Alaska is about $10,000. 
They use approximately 1,000 gallons of 
diesel fuel for heating and approxi- 
mately 850 gallons for cooking. They ' 
currently pay an average of $3,599 a 
year just for diesel fuel. In other words, 
they already spend 35 percent of their 
income for fuel. If the administration's 
Btu tax is imposed, some Native Alas- 
kans could be forced to spend 44 to 51 
percent of their annual income on fuel. 
This does not take into account the in- 
crease in transportation costs, goods 
and fuel due to the Btu tax. 

I believe that. the people who live in 
the colder parts of the country are 
going to be burdened the most by the 
Btu tax. 

We hear all kinds of objections from 
people that live in other areas of the 
country, but just consider. Madam 
President: My State has half the coast- 
line in the United States. 

I am sorry I did not bring the map. If 
you put a map of the United States in 
front of the Senate and impose my 
State on it, Alaska runs from Balti- 
more to San Francisco Harbor and 
from Duluth almost to New Orleans. 

This is a State as broad and as wide 
as the whole United States. Distances 
are severe in my State. And, there is 
not one single exemption for Alaska in 
this Btu tax proposal. 

Everything that we deal with in 
Alaska is increased due to the cost of 
transportation. The Btu tax will un- 
fairly discriminate against Alaskans, 
particularly in the oil industry. 


12004 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


Just consider this: Once we pump 1.8 
million barrels a day from Prudhoe 
Bay, it has to be transported 800 miles 
by pipeline to the sea, and from there 
it will be transported another 1,000 to 
2.500 miles to get to refineries, again by 
sea. When it is *fined, the No. 1 diesel 
comes back to Alaska, to Alaska's vil- 
lages. 

We pay the Btu tax for pumping the 
oil, transporting the oil across our 
State, transporting it down to the re- 
fineries, and transporting it all the 
way back up to Alaska. 

This long distance to the refineries is 
one of the transportation expenses the 
State of Alaska must pay to produce 
our domestic oil. The Btu tax is going 
to reduce the States revenue base. Our 
State devised what we call the dividend 
program, where we take 25 percent of 
the revenues that the State gets from 
oil and gas and we annually spread out 
the interest income amongst all of the 
people who reside in our State. 

So out of the $10,000 annual income I 
mentioned for a family of four in west- 
em Alaska, $4,000 of the income comes 
directly from the dividend program. 
These people just do not have the 
money to pay a Btu tax on oil. 

Just think. Madam President, if we 
were to go into the North Slope and de- 
velop ANWR, the bulk of the people 
who would be emploj'ed there are the 
people who live in rural Alaska. 

During the time of the construction 
of the Alaska pipeline and the drilling 
out of Prudhoe Bay, there was substan- 
tial job opportunities for those people. 
Today, they have 85 percent unemploy- 
ment in their villages, but they are 
asked to pay more in taxes because 
some people in the south 48 say a Btu 
tax will reduce our dependency on for- 
eign oil. 

Every item that they get in those 
rural villages — food, clothing, manu- 
factured goods, even their snow ma- 
chines — comes from the south 48, as we 
call them. 

I see no reason for us to give up some 
of the existing jobs we already have. 
Almost 1,400 jobs in our State will be 
lost because of the cost of the Btu tax. 
Our people are not going to be able to 
run the small businesses and pay these 
increased costs — they cannot afford it. 
They are barely breaking even now. 

The reconciliation bill that has just 
passed the House has, as I understand 
it, a provision to exclude diesel fuel 
used on farms from the Btu tax. No 
similar provision exists for the fishing 
industry. Our fishermen are the farm- 
ers of the sea. More than half of the 
fish consumed in the United States 
comes from the waters off my State. 

Yet, both in terms of the cost of get- 
ting their supplies, the cost of getting 
their fuel, and the cost of operating all 
of their vessels — every single cost is in- 
creased by the Btu tax. Yet, farmers 
are exempted. Why? They have a sub- 
stantial number of votes in the House. 


And that bill passed by just six votes. 
If you look at it, three votes the other 
way and it would have tied; it would 
not have passed. 

What about the Alaska Natives; what 
about the Alaskan people? Why should 
they be forced to accept these exemp- 
tions, which will only increase the tax 
burden placed on them, so that the bill 
could get a vote here or a vote there, in 
the farm country of the south 48? 

Again, Madam President, I say to 
you I think the Btu tax is the most op- 
pressive tax I have ever heard discussed 
in the U.S. Senate. I am going to join 
the Senator from Texas to defeat it. It 
needs to be defeated. 

We realize we have ample oppor- 
tunity in this country to develop our 
own production. We could restore the 
production of the south 48. We have 
lost over 4 million barrels a day pro- 
duction from stripper wells in the 
south 48 because of the changes in the 
tax laws, and we have certainly lost a 
great opportunity to develop the larg- 
est remaining basin on the North 
American Continent in terms of drill- 
ing on the Arctic plain. 

I am hopeful the Senate will join the 
Senator from Texas and me and many 
others and defeat the Btu tax. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The Senator from Maine. 


CAMPAIGN PROMISES 

Mr. COHEN. Madam President, there 
is a familiar song, "What a Difference 
a Day Makes. " Some might extend 
that to "What a Difference a Year 
Makes. ■ I might entitle it, "What a 
Difference a Campaign Makes." 

We are often held to reconcile what is 
promised during the course of a cam- 
paign with what actually is performed 
following that campaign. We are re- 
minded, from time to time, of the dif- 
ference between politics and political 
promises and the responsibilities of 
governance. 

I have not decided as to whether I am 
going to offer an amendment during 
the course of this morning's legislative 
schedule or not. But it seems to me I 
should at least take a few moments to 
discuss the entire issue of most-fa- 
vored-nation status that is being ex- 
tended today to China. 

For the past several years, legisla- 
tion has been introduced in this body 
to predicate any granting of most-fa- 
vored-nation status to China upon cer- 
tain conditions: A legislative require- 
ment that they adhere to certain 
human rights standards, certain trade 
standards, and also certain standards 
dealing with arms proliferation. 

I can recall being on this floor in this 
Chamber on several occasions — the 
number escapes me at the moment — 
one, in fact, in which a colleague of the 
Presiding Officer, from California, was 
standing at the rear of the Chamber 
urging us to support legislation that 


would predicate any extension of most- 
favored-nation status to China upon 
adhering to those three categories, or 
standards within those three cat- 
egories. 

It was a tough vote. It was a tough 
vote for Republicans to support Presi- 
dent Bush, who said we should not try 
to legislatively shove these particular 
standards down the throats of the Chi- 
nese, at least not in this fashion. And 
that while we support many of the 
goals expressed in the legislation, the 
better course of action would be to deal 
with the Chinese leadership on a pri- 
vate and less public basis to gain con- 
cessions from them in areas in which 
we felt they were acting adversely to 
the interests of the United States, in- 
deed to the world community, particu- 
larly in the field of human rights. 

I think the President campaigned on 
that issue. President Clinton cam- 
paigned on a very strong anti-most-fa- 
vored-nation status being granted to 
China unless those conditions were ad- 
hered to. 

So I was somewhat surprised to learn 
that last evening, the President an- 
nounced he would be granting most-fa- 
vored-nation status to China, subject 
to certain conditions being imposed, 
that would be adhered to hopefully in 
the coming year. This is by way of ex- 
ecutive action and not legislation. 

It seems to me this is much weaker 
than that position being espoused — I 
should say articulated— by leading 
Democrats in both Houses, that they 
would mandate legislatively that China 
would have to adhere to all these con- 
ditions in all three categories. I point 
out Tibet, it was argued— and Congress 
had voted — was a separate, independent 
nation that China was illegally occupy- 
ing. I do not gather from the state- 
ments that appear in today's Washing- 
ton Post that Tibet is actually part of 
China. 

I mention this today because, while I 
supported President Bush in his deter- 
mination to force the Chinese leader- 
ship to come around to recognize 
human rights concerns, and other trade 
issues and arms proliferation issues, it 
was very difficult. It was a tough vote. 
And I am soniewhat surprised to find 
the leading advocates for this position 
now suddenly have reversed course and 
it is now an executive decision with 
complete discretion being granted to 
President Clinton in determining 
whether, in his judgment. China will 
live up to the human rights standards 
being imposed. 

I actually support the President's po- 
sition to grant most-favored-nation 
status to China, but I must point out it 
is rather inconsistent. It is rather in- 
consistent for those who were most 
passionate in denouncing the Chinese 
Government, most passionate in insist- 
ing most-favored-nation status be con- 
ditioned legislatively upon those areas 
that I mentioned before, to suddenly be 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12005 


silent — or expressing agreement this 
should be done by executive decision, 
with complete discretion being given 
to President Clinton. 

President Clinton has learned how to 
deal with China, apparently; that is, 
rather than trying to beat them pub- 
licly over the head with various condi- 
tions, to negotiate quietly or dip- 
lomatically to achieve these ends. To 
that end, I support these efforts. Once 
again, it is the difference between a 
campaign and an actual responsibility, 
a requirement, to govern. 

I have not decided at this moment 
whether I will introduce legislation 
that will impose a legislative solution 
as opposed to an executive one to deal 
with China, but I just wanted to take a 
moment to point out the rather clear 
and patent inconsistency on the part of 
those who advocated most passionately 
it must be a legislative solution. 

I yield the floor. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The minority leader. 


MFN STATUS FOR CHINA 

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, follow- 
ing along with what the distinguished 
Senator from Maine has articulated, I, 
too, support the President's decision to 
extend most-favored-nation status to 
China for another year. In announcing 
the renewal. President Clinton has 
used many of the arguments President 
Bush used in previous years, arguments 
that President Clinton criticized dur- 
ing his election campaign. I assumed 
there would be a tirade here against 
President Clinton's extension, as there 
was against President Bush's efforts — 
or should be. Every year we went 
through this process. Every year we 
barely prevailed. I do regret the Presi- 
dent decided to put thousands of Amer- 
ican jobs at risk for the first time by 
putting conditions on the renewal of 
MFN status in 1994. 

We have had this debate every year. 
We have had farmers and manufactur- 
ers told to hold their breaths to see 
whether or not we are going to cutoff 
business with China. Now they have 
one more year of uncertainty. I would 
strongly suggest to the President and 
to other Senators from both parties 
that this annual debate was not in the 
best interests of democracy in China, 
or economic health here at home. 

It seems to me. since we have 1.1 bil- 
lion peQB>6, we had better be inside the 
tent if we hope to have any influence 
on human rights policies in the Peo- 
ple's Republic of China. ^We had better 
be players, instead of standing on the 
outside looking in. The administra- 
tion's approach is particularly puzzling 
since they have been talking about 
multilateralism, working with our al- 
lies in Bosnia, working with them on 
Iran, and not going it alone. 

We are certainly going it alone when 
it comes to MFN status for China. I do 


not see our friends in Europe and 
Japan announcing conditions on their 
trade policies with China. I do not see 
any multilateral approach here. What I 
see is this administration telling 
American farmers and American work- 
ers and American consumers that they 
have been drafted into a one-country 
effort to promote democratic progress 
in China. 

This also is hard to reconcile with 
statements made by administrative of- 
ficials in briefings the past 2 weeks 
that China has indeed taken a number 
of important steps in human rights, in 
trade, and in mutual national security 
interests, which the United States has 
asked it to do. I hope that is the case. 

China is going to be a huge force in 
Asia; it is now, and is going to con- 
tinue to be. We need good relationships 
'wTth'TShina, and I ask the Chinese lead- 
ership \o work with our administration 
to extend bilateral cooperation and re- 
duce the differences between us. And 
toward those goals, I promise ti 
strongly support President Clinton am 
the administration. j 

Mr. COHEN. Will the Senator yield? ' 

Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield? 

Mr. COHEN. I point out that had we 
opposed those conditions legislatively 
that converged upon the Congress in 
the past several years, then China 
would be in violation of those, because, 
according to the news reports, China is 
breaking the missile pledge; China, in 
fact, has been selling technology to 
Pakistan in violation of its pledge. If 
we had opposed those legislatively. 
China would be in violation and MFN 
would be revoked. 

I notice by this declaration, that has 
been separated out. We are not even 
going to tie that to granting most-fa- 
vored-nation, no consideration of pro- 
liferation of arms, no consideration of 
the trade issue; only the human rights 
violations, and those are, as the Sen- 
ator pointed out, subject solely, not to 
Presidential certification, but solely to 
Presidential discretion. I think it is a 
wide departure from where we were a 
year ago. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the 
Senator from Maine. 

The hour of 10 o'clock having arrived, 
I would like to use some of my leader 
time, if I might. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 
Mathews). The Senator has that right. 


BIG^ BIG. BIG TAX PACKAGE 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, by a very 
narrow margin last night, the House 
did it to the American people. They 
passed this massive tax bill, and I even 
see some of th^networks have it all 
mixed up. They are calling it $250 bil- 
lion in spending cuts and $250 billion in 
tax increases. That is not true at all. 
There is not $500 billion in deficit re- 
duction. You get all the taxes between 
now and in this first year. There are $47 


billion in discretionary spending cuts, 
but not $1 before 1996. There are $45.8 
billion in mandatory spending cuts, but 
only $6.2 billion before 1996. So all the 
talk on the morning shows and the 
President talking about all those 
spending cuts, i'c is $6.2 billion before 
1996, but the taxes started last Janu- 
ary. The taxes are big, $275 billion to 
some $280 billion. 

Based on the House reconciliation 
package, it is hard to believe — I know a. 
lot of people are not going to believe it. 
I hope Peter Jennings is watching be- 
cause he had it all wrong on ABC the 
other night. We are going to cut the 
mammoth total of $6.2 billion between 
now and 1996. 

It is up to the American peoi^e, it is 
up to the Senate, it is up to the people 
of Texas on June 5 to send a message to 
this Senate and all across America 
that we do not want more taxes unless 
we get some spending cuts. I must say, 
I was shocked; I knew it was awful, but 
I defy anybody to say that they cut 
more than $6.2 billion between now and 
the year 1996. Oh, they said, if they do 
not do more, they are going to consider 
doing something, and that brought in 
all these people who call themselves 
conservatives on the Democratic side. 

I want to commend the 38 House 
Democrats who did stand up against 
this big. big, big. big tax package. I 
cannot believe there were not more. I 
think this shoots a hole in this fresh- 
man class where they had 62 new Mem- 
bers and they were going to change the 
world and change the Congress. Fifty- 
one out of the 62 voted for this big. big. 
big tax package. It is disheartening. I 
know the American people, when they 
get the details, will be shocked to find 
out the tax increases started in Janu- 
ary and they only get $6.2 billion in 
spending cuts before 1996. 

So let me just say what happened. 
They voted for about $6.35 in tax and 
fee increases for every dollar in spend- 
ing cuts in the next 5 years. If that is 
what the Democrats are going to try to 
sell on this side of the Capitol. I think 
it is going to be very difficult. More 
than $83 billion of so-called cuts in this 
bill would not be considered cuts any- 
where but in Washington, DC, where 
the Government budget process allows 
Congress to extend current law and we 
count these cuts. Only about 5 percent 
of the deficit reduction in this bill, 18.5 
percent, comes from real cuts in cur- 
rent programs. I guess they backed off 
the honeybee program, the one pro- 
gram President Clinton said he was 
going to cut. 

So, Mr. President, it is not a day to 
celebrate. I know a lot of people were 
applauding last night. The taxpayers 
were not applauding. I did not see any 
taxpayers on the House side applaud- 
ing, but all the Democrats who just 
love taxes were applauding. They were 
saying: "We did it again; we stuck it to 
them; the American people are going to 
pay and pay and pay and pay " 


1 


V 


12006 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


So I am looking for the State of 
Texas to lead us out of this very, very 
bad legislation. If the Republican can- 
didate, Kay Bailey Hutchison, can win 
that seat a week from tomorrow, it 
will send a message heard around the 
United States and in every seat in this 
Chamber, and I think it may bring 
back some stability and some sense of 
direction. 

I say to the President. Republicans 
are willing to give you bipartisan sup- 
port if you will cut spending — cut 
spending— and many of my colleagues 
are willing to accept some revenues, 
but nobody can vote for a bill like this. 
And it is not $500 billion in deficit re- 
duction as the President was saying 
this morning. It is only $336.8, and $275 
or more of that is taxes; plus fees, an- 
other $15 billion. And the only spending 
cuts — as I said most of them do not 
even happen until after 1996. which 
happens to be the next Presidential 
election. 

So I regret that the House passed this 
bill. I waflt to commend Speaker Foley 
and majority leader Gephardt and the 
President for getting it done. When you 
have a package this bad and you have 
to pass it, that is a real accomplish- 
ment. Hopefully, on the Senate side we 
will all wake up here and we will all go 
home, we will talk to real people, the 
voters. This is not a question of saving 
the Presidency, it is a question of sav- 
ing the country and savir^g the econ- 
omy. Hopefully, when we all come 
back, having listened to the >;oters. 
Democrats, Republicans, Independents, 
we will say no to this package and we 
will start over and we' will have spend- 
ing cuts and maybe some revenues. 

Mr. President, I reserve tfie remain- 
der of my leader time. 

Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator from Washington. 

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President. I ask 
unanimous consent to speak for 10 min- 
utes as in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 


AVIATION REVITALIZATION ACT 
OF 1993 

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President. I 
would like to thank Senator^WENDELL 
Ford, chairman of the Senate Aviation 
Subcommittee for introducing the 
Aviation Revitalization Act, which is 
so important to the State of Washing- 
ton and which I am proud to join as an 
original cosponsor. The jobs of Amer- 


I look at this legislation and at my 
work as a member of the National 
Commission to Ensure a Strong Com- 
petitive Airline Industry, through the 
prism of jobs for the people of Washing- 
ton. 

In fact, my primary reason for sup- 
porting this bill is to support the jobs 
of tens of thousands of Washingtonians 
who work for the Boeing Co. and the 
hundreds of companies that supply and 
service it. I cannot forget that roughly 
340,000 American aerospace manufac- 
turing jobs have disappeared in the last 
5 years; further layoffs have been pre- 
dicted. 

In January, Boeing announced plans 
to cut production of commercial air- 
craft by one-third, a decision which 
may "affect as many as 20,000 of the 
80,000 Washington State workers em- 
ployed in commercial 'aircraft manu- 
facturing. 

In the airline service sector, it is too 
late to save Pan Ami Eastern Airlines, 
and some of the other airline pioneers. 
The roster of pilots, mechanics, flight 
attendants, and other airline employ- 
ees who lost their livelihood with the 
demise of these airline giants is a trag- 
ic American tale. But there is still 
time to write a new chapter for our do- 
mestic airline industry. Fortunately, 
this is one of President Clinton's and 
Senator Ford's top priorities. 

As usual, the problem is money. Dur- 
ing the last few years, domestic air- 
lines have lost a staggering $6.8 billion., 
U.S. airlines will require nearly $50 bil- 
lion in new aircraft. to meet both pro- 
jected growth in air traffic and Govern- 
ment-mandated deadlines for convert- 
ing to quieter, more fuel-efficient air- 
craft. Because of the heavy debt burden 
acquired by most of the domestic air- 
line industry there is serious doubt 
about raising the needed capital 
through traditional methods. 

The Ford bill provides a solution: it 
creates a mechanism to provide our do- 
mestic airlines with the capital they 
desperately need for financing a new 
generation of aircraft. By assisting our 
airlines and retiring the noisy stage II 
aircraft which are due to be phased out 
at the end of this decade by the Airport 
Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, the bill 
will also phase out less-fuel-efficient 
and aging aircraft. This is good for the 
airlines and for our Washington Statfe 
workers and the manufacturing sector. 
Over the long term, the best way to 
revitalize the domestic commercial air- 
craft manufacturing industry is to re- 
store the health of the American air- 


ican aerospace workers are critical to 

the people and the economy of the Mine industry. Airlines are a vital com- 

State of Washington; the health of the ponent of our Nation's transportation 


Boeing Co., as our Nation's largest ex- 
porter, is of great concern to us all. 
The Ford bill provides a major part of 
the solution to the problems facing the 
American aerospace industry, manu- 
facturers, and carriers. It has bi-par- 
tisan support and deserves the supixjrt 
of all Senators. 


sector. The Ford bill creates a loan 
program which would help the airlines 
replace their fleets more quickly and 
in turn put Americans, and specifically 
Washingtonians. back to work. 

Senator Ford began work on this bi- 
partisan and productive plan in Janu- 
ary. It has gone through several drafts 


and revisions, and received the input of 
airlines, manufacturers and labor. My 
work with Senator Ford focused on 
jobs for American workers. Specifi- 
cally, we worked together on a provi- 
sion to guarantee that at least 75 per- 
cent of any ne^r aircraft or new aircraft 
components financed through this pro- 
gram be manufactured or produced in 
the, United States. 

Without such a provision, I fear that 
the airlines would use U.S. taxpayer 
dollars to buy Airbus, aircraft pro- 
duced by a consortium of government- 
subsidized European manufacturers. 
That may have helped airlines but it 
certainly would not have helped Boeing 
workers, or suppliers here in the Unit- 
ed States. 

U.S. Trade Representative Micky 
Kantor told me' this week that his of- 
fice will work with us to assure that 
our bu^ America provision is consist- 
ent with international trade agree- 
ments. 

No other industry in the long run is 
as critical to the economic health and 
military security of the United States 
as American Aerospace. We have seen 
what has happened in other sectors of 
the economy such as autos and elec- 
tronics when we let down our guard. 

We make the finest and most ad- 
vanced aircraft, in the world. Despite 
their economic problems. U.S. airline 
companies provide the most com- 
prehensive and least expensive air serv- 
ice in the world. 

My goal in supporting the Ford bill is 
to keep these industries healthy and 
viable. I cannot stand by and watch 
hundreds of thousands of valuable jobs 
in these critical industries drift 
abroad. 

The Ford bill marks the beginning of 
a new and dynamic aviation policy for 
our country. On behalf of the workers 
of Washington and their families. I 
wish to publicly thank Senator Ford 
his vision and concern about this yitol 
American industry. ' 

Thank you. Mr. President. 


JIM GILLILAND. GENERAL COUN- 
SEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRI- 
CULTURE 

Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. President, I am 
pleased today to applaud the confirma- 
tion of the appointment of Jim 
Gilliland to the post of general counsel 
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

When I first learned of this nomina,- 
tion to this position. I was pleased, but 
certainly not surprised. Jim Gilliland 
is an outstanding selection. He is one 
of those people who always masters his 
task and moves on to excel again. He 
has achieved excellence in all his pur- 
suits, from being valedictorian in high 
school, Phi Beta Kappa in college, to 
law review at Vanderbilt Law College. 
He was selected by his law school peers 
as most outstanding member of his 
class, then later by his fellow lawyers 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD^SENATE 


12<io7 


as most outstanding lawyer at the 
Memphis bar. 

Following a prominent tour of duty 
in the U.S. Navy. Jim then built a dis- 
tinguished career at the firm of 
Glankler, Brown. Gilliland, Chase, Rob- 
inson & Raines in Memphis. For 14 
years, he has also served as trustee of 
Lemoyne-Owen College and chairman 
of the board of that college from 1984 to 
1988. In community service, he has 
chaired many groups and events in- 
cluding the Memphis committee on 
community relations, the Liberty 
Bowl, Navy League and the Memphis 
Arts Council. He is currently active in 
Planned Parenthood, and Leadership 
Memphis. 

I have known Jim Gilliland for many 
years. He is a gifted lawyer, always 
there for what is right when you need 
him. He Is the kind of man many of us 
rely on for advice and good sound, judg- 
ment. These characteristics will serve 
him well as he undertakes his new 
tasks at the USDA. But far more im- 
portantly, such traits will bring integ- 
rity and high standards of quality to 
the Department. 

Mr. President, I thank you for the 
opportunity to speak today, and I com- 
mend my colleagues for their action in 
confirming Jim Gilliland as general 
counsel to the USDA. 


75TH ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN 
INDEPENDENCE DAY 

Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, May 28 
marks thevSth anniversary of the Ar- 
menian proclamation of independence. 
Today, Armenian people throughout 
the world will remember their difficult 
history and renew their hopes for an 
Armenia free from the threat of foreign 
aggression. The Armenian people have 
withstood the genocidal Ottoman 
Turks, the oppressive Soviets, a dev- 
astating earthquake, and now a con- 
flict with Azerbaijan. Their ongoing 
struggle for independence and human 
rights demands the United States' re- 
spect and sympathy on this historic 
day. 

Armenia's rich culture dates back 
more than 25 centuries. Originally an 
autonomous state. Armenia was con- 
quered early in the 16th century by the 
Ottoman Turks. Despite 600 years of 
oppressive Turkish rule, the Armenian 
people would not relinquish their un- 
wavering spirit of independence. For 
six centuries. Armenians continued to 
strive for self-determination and the 
reclamation of their homeland. 

Tragically, in the waning days of the 
19th century, the Turkish rule turned 
brutal. Hundreds of thousands of Arme- 
nian men. women, and children were 
slaughtered in the Turkish effort to si- 
lence the Armenian voices of independ- 
ence. The beginning of the 20th cen- 
tury, however, brought no end to the 
tragic plight of the Armenian people. 
In fact, while the rest of the world was 


distracted by World War I, the Turks 
began their most cruel offensive 
against the Armenians. Beginning in 
1915. and continuing a full 8 yeaxs until 
1923, the Turkish leaders pejcpetrated 
one of the worst genocidal acts of the 
20th century. During those years, ap- 
proximately 1.5 million Armenians 
were killed, tortured, or starved to 
death in massive death marches to 
Syria and Iraq. 

Although the Turks had succeeded in 
devastating the Armenian community 
within the Ottoman Empire, their hor- 
rific acts of brutality could not com- 
pletely exterminate the Armenian peo- 
ple. When an army of refugees and vol- 
unteers from abroad defeated an at- 
tacking Turkish force, t,he surviving 
Armenian citizens, who had managed 
to preserve theip common culture and 
language, finally seized the freedom 
they had coveted for so long. On May 
28. 1918, 75 years ago, Armenia declared 
its independence. It is that event that 
I rise to recognize and celebrate today. 

Unfortunately, the independence of 
this free, democratic state was short 
lived. Only 2 years later. Armenia was 
attacked and defeated by Turkish and 
Russian forces and forced into subjuga- 
tion for another 70 years. Following 
the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, 
however, Armenia fulfilled its historic 
wishes for self-determination when an 
overwhelming percentage of the popu- 
lation voted to once again claim their 
independence as the Republic of Arme- 
nia. 

Although Armenian independence 
has given Armenians the world over 
much to celebrate, both the ravages of 
man and nature continue to pose dif- 
ficult obstacles for the Armenian peo- 
ple. In 1988. a devastating earthquake 
rocked this small republic, destroying 
nearly half of its industrial capacity 
and leaving hundreds of thousands of 
Armenian citizens dead or homeless. 
Further, the continuing struggle for 
land and ethnic autonomy with neigh- 
boring Azerbaijan has also left its 
mark in Armenia. An ongoing Azer- 
baijan economic blockade, coupled 
with a demolished gas line in Georgia, 
left thousands more citizens without 
heat and basic supplies, making this 
past winter. even more grueling. 

Although spring has finally come to 
Armenia, peace has not. In recent 
months, the conflict between Armenia 
and Azerbaijan pressed on and the 
fighting along the two borders has be- 
come incfeasin^y bloody. These most 
recent events are indicative not only of 
Armenia's rocky history, but stand as 
a testament to the independent spirit 
of its people as well. Today, and in the 
future, the Armenian people will con- 
tinue to persevere in the face of oppres- 
sion and other challenges, and they 
will have my support. 


FACES OF THE HEALTH CARE CRI- 
SIS; THE IMPACT OF HIGH 
HEALTH CARE COSTS ON SMALL 
BUSINESSES 

Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, as part 
of my continuing effort to focus on the 
critical need for health reform, I would 
like to highlight today how the high 
cost of health care coverage can burden 
the economic viability of small busi- 
nesses. ^ 

Patty and George Stinnett, ftxim 
Grand Blanc, MI, have owned and oper-^ 
ated Colonial Collision, Inc.. an aut^' 
body repair shop, since 1977. Patty aOQ-^ 
George employ four skilled workers. In 
addition to providing coverage for their 
own family, thi^ Stinnetts pa^ the ^ 
health insurajiee premiums for three of * 
their four workers. The other employee 
receives health care benefits through 
his spouse's insurance. 

The Stinnetts originally boug:ht 
health insurance through a private in- 
surer for themselves and three employ- 
ees. After George had back surgery in 
May 1990, their premiums quadrupled 
and they were forced to find another 
insurance company. 

Patty shopped around for other 
health insurance plans and found that 
many would not cover care for her hus- 
bands thyroid^and back problems, nor 
for an employee's asthma condition be- 
cause of preexisting clauses. They 
eventually found an affordable plan 
without a preexisting clause for the 
family and the business, by joining a 
pool with other small businesses. 

The cost of health insurance is still a 
burden for them. The Stinnett business 
currently pays over $1,000 per month in 
health insurance premiums for two 
family and two single policies. The 
business pays for the entire cost of the 
monthly premium. The health plan re- 
quires a 20-percent copayment and a 
$100 deductible for individuals and a 
$200 deductible for families. 

Despite having insurance, the family 
has incurred considerable out-of-pock- 
et' expense. In addition to the premium 
payments, in 1991, they paid over $5,000 
fof copayments. deductibles, and pay- 
ments for services not covered. Last 
year, their out-of-pocket expenses in 
addition to premium payments were 
well over $1,000. 

The coverage provided under the in- 
surance plan they purchased is for hos- 
pitalization, medical services, and pre- 
scriptions. The Stinnetts have chosen 
to pay for the prescription benefit even 
though it increases their premium 
costs by about 17 percent. This benefit 
is -critical for them since George re- 
quires medication, as does the em- 
ployee with asthma. 

The Stinnetts used to purchase a sup- 
plemental dental and vision benefit for 
themselves and their employees. In 
early 1992. they dropped this coverage 
because the premiums doubled in a 
year and a half, increasing from about 
$30 to $72.30 a month for a family pol- 
icy. 


V 


12008 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


The Stinnett business must absorb 
the cost of health care coverage en- 
tirely. Due to the nature of the colli- 
sion business, which depends almost 
exclusively on insurance company pay- 
ments, the body shop cannot raise 
prices to offset increases in insurance 
premiums. Most other auto body shops 
do not provide health insurance cov- 
erage to their employees because they 
cannot afford the cost. 

Even though the cost of health care 
cuts into the profit of the business, 
Patty and George Stinnett recognize 
the importance of having health insur- 
ance coverage and are dedicated to ex- 
tending that coverage to their employ- 
ees. However, the escalating cost of 
health insurance is making it more and 
more difficult to provide this benefit 
for themselves and their employees. 

Without health care reform, our busi- 
nesses in America, both large and 
small, will continue to struggle to stay 
competitive. The strength of our econ- 
omy depends on containing the costs of 
health care in America. 

My purpose in coming before you 
today is to remind my colleagues about 
the real cost of the health care crisis 
and to keep the Congress focused on 
the need to reform our health care sys- 
tem. I hope that together we can work 
with the administration to control the 
skyrocketing costs of health care. 


IRRESPONSIBLE CONGRESS? HERE 
IS TODAYS BOXSCORE 

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Fed- 
eral debt stood at $4,293,295,034,918.79 as 
of the close of business on Wednesday, 
May 26. Averaged out, every man, 
woman, and child in America owes a 
part of this massive debt, and that per 
capita share is $16,452.12. 


RHODE ISLAND STUDENT KNOWS 
HIS GEOGRAPHY 

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would 
like to congratulate Michael Ring, an 
eighth grade student at Mount St. 
Charles Academy in Woonsocket, RI, 
who took second place honors yester- 
day in the geography championship of 
the United States. 

Michael's father, John Ring, Jr., of 
Milford, MA, reportedly is a lifetime 
National Geographic addict. It's pretty 
clear that his son inherited the same 
interest. 

The 13-year-old lost first place by 
only one point, when he did not know 
where Tagalog is spoken. Second place, 
however, carried with it a $15,000 col- 
lege scholarship. 

Michael's finish in Che National Geo- 
graphic Society's Fifth Annual Na- 
tional Geography Bee, also secured him 
a berth at the first International Geog- 
raphy Olympiad in London this sum- 
mer. 

I was particularly impressed to learn 
that this young man, who already dis- 


played considerable knowledge and 
poise under pressure, also displayed 
considerable wisdom. 

"It's always a little disappointing 
when you get this far," he told a re- 
porter. 'But I still have the $15,000. I'm 
going to London. I can work with the 
two other best geographers in the 
country. And perhaps we can bring 
back a gold medal." 

I know that Michael's teachers, 
friends and fellow students at Mount 
St. Charles Academy are proud of him. 
I also am sure that Rhode Islanders, 
particularly in Woonsocket, will be 
rooting for him to win the gold this 
summer. 

For my part, as one who has enthu- 
siastically supported an increased 
focus on geography, I am absolutely de- 
lighted that a Rhode Island student has 
won such high honors. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- 
sent that an article from today's Provi- 
dence, RI, Journal be inserted in the 
Record as if read. 

There being no objection, the article 
was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as fotlows: 

Mount St. Charles Stlde.nt T.^kes 2d in 

National Contest 

(By John E. Mulligan) 

WAsmNGTON.— For lack of some luck in the 
vicinity of the South China Sea. a Massachu- 
setts boy took second-place honors for Rhode 
Island yesterday in the geography champion- 
ship of the United States. 

Michael Ring. an eighth-grader at 
Woonsocket's Mount St. Charles Academy, 
navigated close to first place, but lost his 
bearings on this stumper: 

Tagalog is one of the jthree main native 
languages of which island country in Asia?" 

The query loosed a flash of geographic cal- 
culus through Ring's circuits for the 12 sec- 
onds he had to ponder an answer in the Na- 
tional Geography Bee finals; 

Okay. I know two of the three languages of 
the Philippines. But not Tagalog. So: Island 
nation. Is it the Philippines? Is it Indonesia? 
Is it Sri Lanka? Is it something even smaller 
or even more obscure? 

A lot was riding on this reckoning by the 
freckled youth from Milford. (His daily geog- 
raphy includes the commute through both 
states in the Blackstone Valley.) Besides the 
national crown, there was the $25,000 college 
scholarship. Ring's 12-for-12 streak in the 
final round, and world of tension cooked up 
over an hour of grilling and TV studio banter 
by host Alex Trebek. 

It was Ring's toughest question of the con- 
test. He frowned and "scrawled and at 
Trebek's command flashed his pale blue an- 
swer card: ••Indonesia." 

Alas for the glory of Rhode Island and the 
Mount. ■Philippines" flashed correctly on 
the rival card of Noel Erinjeri of Michigan. 

But Ring came to rest in second pjace. his 
college nest egg was $15,000 richer and he had 
won a berth at the first International Geog- 
raphy Olympiad in London this summer. 

Ring. 13, had known he would have to base 
the answer to his island nations question on 
guesswork. 

But it would be the educated guesswork of 
a boy obsessed. Ever since taking third in 
last year's Rhode Island championships of 
the National Geographic Society's contest. 
Ring ""has been driven" to win this year's 


trip to the national finals, said his mother. 
Vera Ring. 

The geography bug may have passed ge- 
netically to Ring. His father. John Ring Jr.. 
is a lifetime National Geographic addict. 

But always — and we're talking always 
since he first learned to read. Vera said— it 
has been Michael and his atlases, road maps, 
almanacs, cartography books. Since he won 
the state title last month, the study pressure 
•has been awful." she said. 'Just awful. " He 
was at it 4 or 5 hours a night, right up to 
Monday, poring over the 1993 World Almanac 
here in his room at the Vista Hotel. 

Good thing, too. Ring revisited the Grand 
Coulee Dam in that championship session of 
cramming. 

And of course Trebek demanded in Round 
Eleven yesterday: "Part of the name of the 
largest dam on the Columbia River is derived 
from the term for a flat-bottomed channel 
carved into volcano rock by glacial 
meltwater. What is this term?" 

■•Coulee?'^ ventured Ring, cool as you 
please for his eleventh consecutive swish. 

And as for that lack of a lucky guess 
among Asia's island nations .... 

Ah. well, and all the same, what a classy 
line of post-game chatter the kid put on. 
suitable for framing in the loser's locker 
room at any World Series. 

"It's always a little disappointing when 
you get this far." he said, "But I still have 
the $15,000. I'm going to London. I can work 
with the two other best geographers in the 
country. And perhaps we can bring back a 
gold medal." 


WITH OUR HELP, THE KURDS CAN 
HELP THEMSELVES 

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, in northern 
Iraq, where the Kurdish people have 
been freed for more than 2 years from 
the yoke of Saddam Hussein's oppres- 
sive rule, the Kurds have made remark- 
able advances in their quest to lead a 
normal life. It appears, however, that 
their success has not gone unnoticed in 
Baghdad, and reports indicate that the 
Kurds may once again face the pros- 
pect of an Iraqi invasion. 

In April 1991. the world community 
was galvanized into action by the tre- 
mendous suffering of the Kurds who 
fled Iraq in the wake of a failed upris- 
ing against Saddam's Ba'athist regime. 
Motivated in part by our collective 
guilt for leaving the Kurds exposed for 
so long to Saddam's genocidal designs, 
the anti-Iraq coalition finally made a 
commitment to protect the Kurds. 
With the onset of Operation Provide 
Comfort, the allied effort to patrol the 
no-Py zone over northern Iraq, the 
Kurds found the necessary degree of 
protection to begin their drive toward 
self-sufficiency. 

The Kurds' effort, which was chron- 
icled recently in a Wall Street Journal 
piece by Geraldine Brooks, is both 
compelling and instructive. One theme 
of the article, which I shall submit for 
the Record upon the conclusion of my 
remarks, is that the Kurdish example 
might prove useful in the policy debate 
on Bosnia. Now that the United States 
and its allies are looking toward a 
strategy involving the use of safe ha- 


May 28, 1993 

vens in Bosnia, they could draw upon 
the experience of the safe haven effort 
in northern Iraq. I urge my colleagues 
to read the piece with some care. 

At the same time, I do not wish to 
give the impression that the Kurdish 
issue is solved. As this week's news re- 
ports have shown, the Kurds are still at 
considerable risk of retribution from 
the Iraqi army. Iraqi troops are de- 
ployed in a threatening pattern, and 
harassment of Kurds and foreigners 
alike has increased. The Kurds have 
grown nervous and many international 
humanitarian organizations have 
pulled out of northern Irkq altogether. 
This is particularly troubling, given 
the fact that the Kurds are struggling 
under the weight of two embargos: The 
U.N. blockade of all of Iraq, and an ad- 
ditional Iraqi blockade on the Kurdish- 
held areas. 

If an attack comes, it is likely to tar- 
get the city of Sulaimaniya and its en- 
virons, which, although controlled and 
governed by the Kurds, is south of the 
36th parallel, which marks the south- 
ern-most limit of the no-fly zone. 
Sulaimaniya has a population of 
800,000; any attack would likely spark 
an exodus of refugees reminiscent of 
the Kurdish flights of 1987 and 1991. 

An Iraqi attack, and the subsequent 
refugee flight, would be catastrophic. 
With the situation in Bosnia already 
diverting so much of our attention 
from the domestic agenda, the United 
States does not need another inter- 
national crisis. We must act swiftly to 
prevent this from occurring. 

First, the United States and its allies 
in Operation Provide Comfort must 
continue to affirm that they will not 
tolerate an attack on any Kurdish-held 
area, including the territory below the 
36th parallel. This week the United 
States took a significant step in this 
regard, when Secretary of State Wil- 
liam Christopher said the United 
States would enforce the U.N. resolu- 
tions "with great resoluteness." 

I applaud the Secretary, as well ab 
other State Department officials who 
underscored his warning and indicated 
that the United States would respond 
to attacks on Kurdish territory even 
south of the 36th parallel. If the build- 
up to the Persian Gulf war dem- 
onstrated one thing, it is that Saddam 
Hussein is capable of making the wrong 
decision when faced with the least bit 
of uncertainty. Our allies must be'^n- 
couraged to follow Secretary Chris- 
topher's lead, so that Saddam Hussein 
understands the scope of allied resolve 
and avoids making yet another colossal 
misjudgment. 

Second, the United States must press 
the international community to reit- 
erate its commitment to protect and 
assist the Kurds. U.N. Security Council 
Resolution 688. adopted April 5, 1991, 
codified international support for the 
protection of Iraq's minorities. The Se- 
curity Council should be convened to 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12009 


demonstrate a continued sense of pur- 
pose, perhaps through the adoption of 
an updated resolution that explicitly 
provides for the protection of Kurdish- 
held areas south of the no-fly zone. The 
Security Council should also consider a 
partial lifting of the U.N. blockade for 
the Kurdish-held areas in northern 
Iraq, provided there is a verifiable com- 
mitment from the Kurdish leaders not 
to trade with Baghdad. 

Third, the world must endorse the 
Kurdish drive to reach self-sufficiency. 
The Kurds are more than willing to 
wean themselves off of international 
aid and protection, but they need a lit- 
tle help before they are able to do so. 
The Kurdish-held areas, for instance, 
are endowed with significant oil re- 
serves. With the provision of a refinery 
capability, international donors can 
help the Kurds begin to pay their own 
way. In addition, the Kurds have made 
tremendous strides in developing a uni- 
fied army and police force. With the 
provisions of some additional financial 
assistance, the Kurds can begin to take 
on responsibility for their own self-de- 
fense. 

None of these steps would require 
substantial new commitments from the 
United States or its allies; in fact, 
quite the contrary. These steps are de- 
signed to help the Kurds stand on their 
own two feet, where they will be pre- 
pared to assume a prominent place in a 
federated, post-Saddam Iraq. By imple- 
menting these cost-effective steps now, 
we can avoid having to deal with the 
consequences of another Iraqi attack 
and refugee crisis later. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 
Wall Street Journal article, "Out of 
Harm's Way," be included in the 
Record at this point. 

There being no objection, the article 
was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 
[From the Wall Street Journal. May 19. 1993] 


\ D 


Safe .^rea " Designation Provides Pro- 

TEcrrioN 

(By Geraldine. Brooks) 

Sulalmaniya. Iraq.— Safe areas can work. 
That's the view from this Kurdish town. * 

The idea of turning parts of Bosnia- 
Herzegovina into sanctuaries for besieged 
Muslims is one that the United Nations is 
pushing and the U.S. is weighing— particu- 
larly now that other options, such as air 
strikes on the Bosnian Serbs or arming of 
Muslims, seem unlikely possibilities. 

The U.N. has already named six towns in 
Bosnia as safe areas. Bosnian Serbs, who 
have consistently thumbed their noses at 
U.N. relief efforts, wont be deterred from at- 
tacking the areas unless opposed by military 
power of the sort the West hasn't yet been 
able to agree to deploy. 

But the situation also looked desperate for 
the Kurds of northern Iraq, who found them- 
selves under siege from Saddam Hussein at 
the end of the Gulf War. Then, many of 
President Bush's advisers counseled against 
intervening in Iraq's turbulent internal poli- 
tics. But horrific TV images of suffering 
Kurds and the determination of the British 


prime minister. John Major, finally forced 
Mr. Bush's han.d. 

operation provide comfort 

The results are striking. A visit to the 
Kurdish areas, even late last winter, when 
Kurds battled fuel shortages and freezing 
temperatures, shows just how much humani- 
tarian bang has been achieved for a minimal 
military buck. 

A little more than two years ago. 
Sulaimaniya was almost a ghost town. Most 
of its Kurdish residents, following a failed 
uprising at the end of the Gulf War. had fled 
to the nearby mountains, risking starvation 
and exposure rather than retribution from 
the Iraqi army. But in April 1991. backed by 
a Security Council resolution ordering Iraq 
not to hamper humanitarian efforts, the 
U.S.. Britain and France launched Operation 
Provide Comfort. They sent troops to protect 
Kurds as they returned to their homes. 

Sulaimaniya was well south oi the allies' 
proclaimed safe area. But emboldened by the 
show of outside support. Kurdish militias re- 
grouped in the designated haven, then mus- 
cled the Iraqi army out of a much wider area 
beyond. Now. the city bustles. Tfie univer- 
sity and schools are open, and elections have 
brought orderly government. 

forced RESETTLEMENT 

Bosnia's six scattered safe areas are likely' 
to prove much more difficult to secure than 
the single safe area of Kurdish, Iraq, which is 
bigger than Massachusetts"" and_K£»" Jersey 
combined. Although the rekio" was tradi- 
tionally almost exclusively Kurdish. Saddam 
Hussein had tried to Arabize it in his own 
version of 'ethnic cleansing"— resettling 
.'^rab Iraqis in regions depopulated of Kurds 
either killed or forcibly moved. Most of the 
resettled Arabs fled during or after the Kurd- 
lakvuprising. The region now is home to an 
estinwited 3.5 million Kurds. 

Allied planes continue to enforce an air ex- 
clusion zone over most of this territorx and 
several times this year have responded to 
Iraqi threats by bombing missile sites. But 
only a handful of allied troops and U..N. 
guards remain on the ground. While Saddam 
Hussein's forces continue to harass Kurds 
through terrorism and occasional shellings. 
Kurdish police and militias largely manage 
their own defenses. 

Now. all across northern Iraq it is a time of 
firsts for the Kurds as they hurry to undo 
the policies of Saddam Hussem. At the edi- 
torial office of the one-year-old newspaper 
New Kurdistan, the editor. Azad Jundiani 
brags that sorriebody is actually suing him 
for libel— -just like in a Western democ- 
racy." » 

At the Teacher Training Institute for 
Girls, a geography lesson on tectonics— a 
subject that might bore most 17-year-olds— 
finds 44 youngsters scribbling furiously as 
the teacher describes how the saw-toothed 
crags that rim the city crunched into being 
eons ago. 'It's because it's about mountains, 
something they know." says the teacher. 
Nasaneen Rasheed. 'Up till now all they ever 
learned was deserts, camels and songs about 
Saddam. For the first time they are learning 
the geography of Kurdistan." 

Across town at the ministry of reconstruc- 
tion, the deputy minister has traded his 
guerrilla outfit of sash-belted baggy trousers 
fof a navy blazer, paisley tie and matching 
pocket-handkerchief. 'The other clothes 
were from the time when we were outlaws: 
now I'm part of the government. " says Hus- 
sein Sinjari. appointed after the Kurds held 
elections a year ago. His ministry needs to 
rebuild 3,500 villages bulldozed or dynamited 


12010 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


by Saddam Huosein in the 1980s. Many villag- 
ers, forced into squalid collective towns, 
have taken matters Into their own hands, 
ripping- the doors and/windows from the col- 
lectives' sl\aelrs->a.n4^auling them back into 
the mounta'lns^toYebuild. ■ 

Roadworks are an opportunity for young 
entrepreneurs. After school, youngsters with 
shovels take to the highways, filing potholes 
on a free-lance basis. Grateful drivers fling 
them cons. 

The Kurds are setting up something that 
looks, every day. more like an independent, 
democratic state, complete with "Welcome 
to Kurdistan" signs at its main border cross- 
ing with Turkey. 

At first, the Kurds' Turkish neighbors were 
as unenthusiastic about their role in sup- 
porting Kurdish havens as some of the 
Bosnian Muslims' European neighbors are 
now. But the Kurds reciprocated by cooper- 
ating in a crackdown on Kurdish separatists 
waging a terror campaign in eastern Turkey. 

The Kurds police their unofficial borders 
with their new-look military. Bands of Pesh 
■Merga guerrillas, once rivals are learning to 
work together in a regular army. At the 
newly established military academy, both 
the uniforms and the order of battle are 
Iraqi. Only the insignia of Iraq's ruling 
Baath Party have been stripped off. Kurds 
say their army must match Iraq's, as must 
their courts, ministries and police. 

One day. they say, their aim is to reunite 
with the nation as an autonomous Kurdish 
state inside a democratic, federal Iraq, in 
rftuch the same way that many Bosnians still 
dream of a multi-ethnic state. While many 
Kurds wish for an independent Kurdistan, 
they know that neighbors such as Turkey. 
Iran and Syria, with their own restive Kurd- 
ish minorities, wouldn't be likely to tolerate 
it. 

LEARNING TOLERANCE 

On Kurdish streets, police with Iraq-style 
red berets have replaced the patrols of Ka- 
lashnikov-toting youths who had roamed the 
cities. As the replacement began a few 
months ago, one Saddam-sympathizer mis- 
took the smartened-up Kurds for genuine 
Iraqi policemen. She rushed up to a street- 
comer patrol and greeted them effusively. 
"I'm so glad you're back." she exclaimed. 
"Those Kurds were a disaster." 

Some Kurdish officials like to tell this 
story against themselves; they say they are 
trying to encourage the tolerance of peaceful 
dissent so thoroughly quashed under Saddam 
Hussein's regime. "At first," says Jalal 
Talabani, leader of one of the Kurds' two 
main political parties, "people think that 
democracy means being able to say that Sad- 
dam is bad. It takes longer for them to un- 
derstand that it also means being allowed to 
say Jalal is bad." 

Not all the Saddam pictures have dis- 
appeared. Nejad Aziz, deputy speaker of the 
new parliament, tells of paying a Christmas 
call on the head of a Christian congregation 
in the city of Irbil. "I went with the prime 
minister and the governor or Irbil, and there 
he was, receiving us in a room with a picture 
of him shaking hands with Saddam on the 
wall behind him. We were really pleased. 
He'd known we were coming, and he wasn't 
afraid: he didn't bother to hide" the picture. 

Mr. Aziz also welcomed a strike by Irbil's 
bus drivers, even though they took to the 
streets chanting "Down with the par- 
liament!" Some in the Kurdish government, 
he says, jumped to the conclusion that the 
strike had been organized by Baghdad and 
wanted the drivers punished. "I told them 
that you can't say that without ^riinvestiga- 


tion— it's their right to strike and to pro- 
test." 

HARD TLME 

Instead, a committee met with the drivers 
and heard their gripes. They wanted a cut in 
fuel costs and objected to banks' taking a fee 
for changing coins into bank notes. "We 
reached a compromise," Mr. Aziz says; While 
the price of fuel couldn't be cut, the drivers 
were allowed to raise fares, and the banks 
were ordered to redeem coins at face value. 

There have been lapses, some serious. A 
Kurdish parliamentary human-rights com- 
mittee found "some abuses" in Kurd-run 
prisons. Mr. Aziz concedes. "Some of our in- 
vestigators have been affected by the old 
methods" of brutality -and torture they 
themselves often experienced in Baathist 
jails, he says. In part, he blames the dual 
embargo that the Kurds must endure. As 
part of Iraq, the Kurdish region is subject to 
U.N. economic sanctions aimed at Saddam 
Hussein. 

Yet as Saddam Hussein's sworn enemies, 
the Kurds also are choked by a blockade he 
imposes on the movement of goods to them 
from Baghdad. The nascent police force 
might be less likely to resort to rough inter- 
rogation. Mr. Aziz argues, if it could get fin- 
gerprint kits or other modern investigation 
technology to help it solve crimes such as a 
January car-bombing in Irbil that killed 
more than 20 people. 

Sometimes. Saddam Hussein's war of 
nerves against the Kurds is more overt than 
such anonymous acts of terrorism. From the 
streets of Chamchamal, a sprawling town 
Just yards from the Iraqi army's front lines, 
Kurds can watch _the soldiers moving to and 
from their artillery positions. From time to 
time, the soldiers lob a random shell on the 
town. Elsewhere, farmers whose fields run 
close to Iraqi positions are afraid to com- 
plete spring sowing since snipers began 
targeting anyone on a tractor. 

BREAD AND YOGLRT 

And then there is the Baghdad blockade, 
which keeps Kurds from getting, the fuel that 
other Iraqis can buy for pennies. Nasaneen 
Rasheed. the geography teacher, belongs to 
what used to be one of Sulaimaniya's 
wealthy families. During the Kurds' uprising 
of March 1991. she and her family played host 
to Western journalists at a celebratory feast 
of traditional Kurdish delicacies such as 
pomegranate chicken and an elaborate con- 
coction known as "pilaf behind a curtain." 

These days. Ms. Rasheed and her sister 
rarely cook at all because they can't afford 
to pay the half-month salary it costs to buy 
a smuggled bottle of gas. Like most Kurds, 
they subsist on yogurt and bread, supple- 
mented occasionally with a hot dish of rice 
or beans. The Rasheeds spent their life sav- 
ings in the miserable flight to Iran that fol- 
lowed Saddam Hussein's crushing of the 
Kurdish uprising. They came back as soon as 
the allies' declaration of a no-fly zone gave 
the Pesh Merga a chance to rout the Iraqi 
forces from their city. 

Coming home one evening during one of 
the city's intermittent blackouts, Ms. 
Rasheed stubs her toe on the step and curses; 
"God kill Saddam— if Clinton doesn't kill 
him." Like many Kurds, she is uncertain 
about Mr. Clinton's intentions toward Iraq. 
After being supported and then dumped by 
Jimmy Carter in 1975. and again by Mr. Bush 
during the 1991 uprising. Kurds have become 
eAremely wary of their international back- 
er^, even as they continue to rely on them. 

WAR WINDOWS 

Again like many Kurds, Ms. Rasheed deals 
with the uncertainties by ignoring them. She 


labors over her new lesson plans as if the 
fresh curriculum were not at risk of being 
swept away any day Saddam Hussein at- 
tempts to retake the north. 

And each afternoon, when she finishes 
teaching, she works as a volunteer at Zhinan^ 
Women's Union of Kurdistan', setting up 
small businesses to employ the widows of 
men killed in Saddam Hussein's Operation 
Anfal. in which Kurds estimate 182.000 people 
disappeared. By scrounging used sewing ma- 
chines and bits of metal tubing to make 
looms, she has managed to start a small tai- 
lor shop in Halabja. the site of Saddam Hus- 
sein's deadly 1988 poison-gas attack, and a 
large rug-weaving workshop in Shoresh. one 
of the most dismal of Saddam's collective 
towns. 

Ori Thursday nights, the beginning of the 
Iraqi weekend, she sometimes takes an 
evening off to visit friends. Nibbling pickled 
radish and sipping sweet tea, she and her 
friends forget politics for an hour or two. 
The .gossip is lighthearted: a brother's com- 
ing marriage, a friend's potential suitor. 
Then, a lean, large-eyed teacher named 
Sirwa mentions recent nightmares, and the 
party mood darkens. "It is always the same 
dream, " she says softly. "Soldiers fanning 
through the streets, dragging us from our 
house." The women stare at their plates and 
say nothing. 

"I will tell you one thing." Sirwa says fi- 
nally. 'If they do come again. I won't run, 
I'll fight them. But if they win. " she adds, 
"I'll kill myself. I can never go back to the 
way it was before." 


THE ROTK'DOLE STIMULUS 
PACKAGE 

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today 
several of our friends and colleagues 
from the other side of the aisle have in- 
troduced a so-called stimulus package, 
and it has been labeled "Jobs for Amer- 
ica," 

As outlined in a news release on May 
12, 1993, this proposal consists of 8 tax 
cuts costing $36.58 billion over 6 years 
intended to create jobs. That cost is 
offset by 14 budget cuts which report- 
edly save $45.67 billion over 6 years. 

Mr. President, let me first say that it 
has not been my practice in the past to 
come to the Senate floor to discuss the 
pros and cons of each and every bill in- 
troduced by our friends across the aisle 
nor is that my intention in the future. 
On most serious tax proposals I would 
normally wait until I had heard hear- 
ings in the Senate Finance Committee 
before I made a judgment on the pro- 
posal, 

A short 2 months ago, I stood on this 
Senate floor and heard a resounding 
and unified call from that side of the 
aisle: "We don't need a stimulus pack- 
age. * * * The Bush recovery is in 

place. * * * Wait for the Bush recovery, 

* * *" 

The bottom line is that Senators in 
this body filibustered and killed Presi- 
dent Clinton's $16.3 billion stimulus 
package that would have created over 
200.000 real jobs quickly. Gridlock ruled 
again in this Chamber. 

But barely 2 months after repeatedly 
saying there was "no need" for Presi- 


May 28, 1993 

dent Clinton's $16.3 billion jobs pack- 
age, they stand on the same Senate 
floor and now say we need a $37.6 bil- 
lion stimulus package to create jobs. 

Are our colleagues now willing to 
publicly admit that President Clinton 
was right in the first place? That the 
recovery is weak? That President Clin- 
ton was right, and we do need a jobs 
stimulus package? 

Why did we not hear about this fan- 
tastic silver bullet in March, when we 
were debating the merits of a jobs 
plan? This bill could have been offered 
as an amendment to the President's 
package. 

Now, those Senators have introduced 
this plan, so that the same people who 
stopped the President's plan to create 
250,000 new jobs can say "don't blame 
Republican gridlock for this mess, be- 
cause we have a plan to create 800,000 
jobs." 

When I heard of this plan to create 
800,000 jobs and reduce the deficit by $9 
billion, I looked into the details to see 
if it would create jobs and reduce our 
long-term deficit. I did not believe that 
it could be that simple, and my fears 
were confirmed upon close examina- 
tion. 

Unfortunately, this plan will not cre- 
ate jobs, nor will it reduce the budget 
deficit in a meaningful way. Once 
again, the lesson in this Chamber is 
that a painless, silver bullet solution 
rarely stands up to close scrutiny, and 
the American people have understood 
that lesson for a long time. 

I asked the Congressional Research 
Service to examine this plan and I will 
ask unanimous consent that the memo 
written to me by the senior specialist 
in economic policy at CRS to be in- 
cluded at the end of my statement. 

Let me quote directly from this 
memo regarding the short-run effects 
of this plan:^^ 

Since the re^nue gains exceed the losses, 
the short run effects of the proposal would be 
expected to be contractionary— that is, jobs 
would be reduced rather than gained. 

Later in the same paragraph. 

* * * The proposal would be expected to 
have little effect on jobs. 

The reison behind this is simple. 
With one hand, the plan puts $37.6 bil- 
lion into the economy with tax cuts. 
and with the other hand, the plan takes 
out $45.7 billion with spending cuts. 

This plan will not create 800.000 jobs. 
In fact, it may reduce, not increase, 
short-term job growth, and put work- 
ing Americans in the unemployment 
line. 

This plan is voodoo economics all 
over again. 

So, Mr. President, where did the 
claim of 800.000 jobs created come 
from? Well, the minority staff of the 
Joint Economic Committee prepared 
the estimate, according to the news re- 
lease. 

The Congressional Research Service 
asked the minority staff on the Joint 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12011 


Economic Committee for their mate- 
rials supporting the claim of 800,000 
jobs created, but as is outlined in the 
memo I submitted for the Record they 
provided only one specific study about 
just one of the 8 job creating tax cuts. 

I am sure that my Republican friends 
did not make up the claim of 800,000 
jobs— I am sure that claim did not 
come out of thin air. However, the 
memo from the independent, non- 
partisan Congressional Research seems 
to cast large doubts on the validity of 
this claim. 

Let me set the record straight on an- 
other part of this stimulus plan. The 
proponents of this measure claim that 
it will reduce the budget deficit by $9 
billion. 

It is interesting that out of the $45.7 
billion in spending cuts proposed in 
this stimulus plan— $36.6 billion of the 
same, identical spending cuts are in 
President Clinton's comprehensive 
budget and economic plan. 

That is right, Mr. President, 80 per- 
cent of the spending cuts in this plan 
were first proposed by President Clin- 
ton in his budget plan. That is the 
same budget plan that each and every 
one of my 43 Republican colleagues 
voted against. 

On March 25, 1993, every Member in 
this body had a chance to go on record 
supporting these spending cuts, and 
each and every Republican voted 
against them. Now, they come back 
with this plan and include the exact 
same spending cuts that they voted 
against in March. 

More importantly, this stimulus plan 
as proposed is a budget buster. The 
plan is only paid for during the next 6 
years — after that time the tax cuts 
cost the treasury tens of billions of dol- 
lars, and no offsetting spending cuts 
are proposed to pay for them. 

Let me again quote from the Con- 
gressional Research document regard- 
ing just one of the proposals in the 8- 
part tax cut plan that would bust the 
deficit, that is indexing capital gains: 

First, the prospective capital gains provi- 
sions begins at a very small revenue loss be- 
cause it initially indexes only the small 
amount of inflation on newly purchased as- 
sets. The revenue loss grows rapidly, at 1998 
levels of income, the long run steady state 
cost of capital gains indexing is estimated at 
about $26 billion. 

Simply put, in the future, this single 
provision will cost the Federal Treas- 
ury $26 billion each and every year. 
That is $26 billion added to our Na- 
tions deficit and our debt each and 
every year after 1998 from just one of 
the 8 tax cuts. 

Mr. President, that is the budget ef- 
fect of only one portion of the plan. Let 
me make a more general budgetary 
point about the plan as a whole. 

(The 8 tax cuts intended to create 
jobs are permanent — they will cost the 
Federal Treasury money from day one 
onward, each and every year adding to 
the budget deficit.) 


Of the 14 spending cuts that pay for 
these permanent tax cuts, only 2 are in 
mandatory programs. Twelve of the 
cuts are in discretionary spending, but 
you can only cut discretionary spend- 
ing once. These cuts will help pay for 
the tax cuts in the next 6 years, but 
they do not pay for the tax cuts in the 
out years. In 6 years, all you have left 
from this plan are the tax cuts adding 
to the deficit — with no corresponding 
cut in mandatory programs to offset 
the long-term costs. 

This is a long way of saying that' 
money will be pouring out of the Fed- 
eral treasury, adding to the deficit, but 
this plan has no spending cuts in the 
future to pay for it. 

Mr. President, this is not a serious 
plan. 

This body had a chance to pass an 
important jobs bill 2 months ago, when 
it would have done some good for the 
employment situation this summer, 
but some of our friends chose to stand 
in the way of our newly elected Presi- 
dent. 

It is time for us to let this issue rest 
in peace, and let the American public 
decide if they want gridlock or action. 
The American people want progress, 
not partisan politics. 

I ask that the memo to which I re- 
ferred be printed in the Record. 

There being no objection, the letter 
was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

Congressional Research Service, 

Washington. DC. May 26. 1993. 
To; Honorable David Pryor. 
From; Jane G. Gravelle. Senior Specialist in 
Economic Policy. Office of Senior Spe- 
cialists. 
Subject; Discussion of Proposed Tax and 
budget Changes. 

This memorandum is in response to your 
request for a discussion of the proposed tax 
and budget changes contained in the news re- 
lease by Senator Bill Roth (dated May 12, 
1993) and how they affect employment and' 
growth. 

This proposal contains several tax reduc- 
tions which sums to a total loss of $37.6 bil- 
lion from FY93-F'V98 according to estimates 
contained in the accompanying materials.' 
These provisions and their respective 6-year 
revenue costs are; (1) prospecti%'e indexing of 
capital gains ($11.7 billion), (2) changes in the 
alternative minimum tax ($2.5 billion), (3» an 
increase in the limit on the option to ex- 
pense equipment investment from $10,000 to 
$25,000 ($8.4 billion), (4) a reinstatement of 
fully deductible Individual retirement ac- 
counts (IRAs) including an option for 
backloaded accounts ($3.1 billion), (5) pen- 
alty free withdrawals of IRAs for certain 
purposes ($2.4 billion), (6) a temporary jobs 
tax credit for hiring new employees ($3.4 bil- 
lion), (7) a repeal of luxury taxes ($2.6 bil- 
lion), and (8) a modification of passive loss 
restrictions for certain individuals engaged 
directly in real estate activities ($2.5 bil- 
lion). 

There are offsetting revenue receipts from 
spending cuts of $45.7 billion over the 6 year 
period. These provisions include two changes 
in mandatory programs totaling $11.3 billion: 


' This analysis assumes that the revenue estimates 
are correct. 


s 


12012 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


elimination of the lump sum retirement ben- 
efit election for Federal civilian employees 
($8.3 billion) and an administrative reform 
designed to reduce medicare costs (requiring 
essentially information reporting on whether 
the employee is in a group plan). 

There are also a series of reductions in dis- 
cretionary programs to be enforced through 
spending caps, which total $34.3 billion. 
These include reductions in Federal aid for 
mass transit, elimination of .highway dem- 
onstration projects, an administrative provi- 
sion affecting government contractors, re- 
ductions in Federal employment, reductions 
in administrative expenses (not specified), 
restrictions on accumulation of leave for 
senior career employees of the Federal gov- 
ernment, elimination of the Interstate Com- 
merce Commission, sale of Federal helium 
reserves, reduction of Legal Services Cor- 
porations Funding, termination of the copy- 
right royalty Commission, and reduction in 
certain foreign aid programs. 

Some of these specific changes are quite 
small, the ones that are in excess of $1 bil- 
lion include the reductions in transportation 
(mass transit and highway) spending ($10.5 
billion), the cuts in Federal employment and 
unspecified cost administrative cost reduc- 
tions ($19.1 billion), and foreign aid ($2 bil- 
lion). 

The release states that the program will 
increase employment by 800. (MX) jobs over five 
years, with 200.000 in the first two years. The 
release includes a page reporting the jobs 
created by the tax provisions prepared by the 
minority staff of the Joint Economic Com- 
mittee. We have been unable to obtain full 
details from the Committee on the deriva- 
tion of these estimates: in the final section 
we discuss the materials that they did pro- 
vide us. These estimates are greatly in ex- 
cess of what one might expect given a stand- 
ard multiplier effect, however. No estimates 
are presented for the offsetting 
contractionary effects of the spending cuts. 

This memorandum will discuss first the 
short run effects on aggregate demand and 
then the long run effects on economic 
growth. Note that there is normally a ten- 
sion between these objectives, in that a pol- 
icy that reduces the deficit tends to be 
contractionary in the short run although it 
increases growth in the long run. 

SHORT RUN EFFECTS ON AGGREG.ATE DE.M.A.ND 

Since the revenue gains exceed the losses, 
the short run effects of the proposal would be 
expected to be contractionary— that Is, jobs 
would be reduced rather than gained. These 
effects could be characterized as negligible, 
however, since the net fiscal contraction is 
extremely small particularly in the first 
year or two when the concern about recovery 
from the recession is most serious. In FY 
1994. the net gain is only $445 million. Thus, 
the proposal would be expected to have little 
effect on jobs. 

If the capital incentives increase savings, 
as IS suggested by the sponsors, these slight 
contractionary effects would be increased 
since an increase in savings reduces aggre- 
gate demand. There is. however, little reason 
to believe that the tax provisions in the pro- 
posal will increase savings because there is 
little evidence that increasing the rate of re- 
turn increases savings. ^ 


'Economic theory indicates that the effects of re- 
ducing taxes on capital income has ambiguous ef- 
fects on savings, due to offsetting Income and sub- 
stitution effects. Most time series studies of savings 
fail to uncover a significant relationship. See Mi- 
chael Boskin. Taxation. Savings, and the Rate of In- 
terest. Journal of Political Economy, v. 86. January. 


LONG RUN EFFECTS ON ECONOMIC GROWTH 

In the long run. there is no reason to ex- 
pect any effect on the number of jobs even 
with a large change. A fiscal stimulus does 
not have a persistent effect on employment. 
Rather, the issue in the long run is the effect 
of the proposal on overall savings and Invest- 
ment. 

The effect of the proposal in the long run. 
given the lack of evidence that tax incen- 
tives increase savings, will depend largely on 
the effects on the deficit. In the last year, 
the spending cuts approximately equal the 
revenue losses (the net is $95 million), which 
would suggest no permanent effects. 

It seems likely that the proposal will re- 
duce growth in the long run. ho'wever. be- 
cause the revenue losses from the tax provi- 
sions are likely to grow substantially. More- 
over, at least one of the spending cost will 
eventually turn into a loss— the elimination 
of lump sum Federal Retirement payments. 
The provision is responsible for $3 billion in 
spending cuts in the last year estimated. 
Since these payments substituted for annu- 
ities, spending on annuities will rise eventu- 
ally and the spending cut will become a 
spending increase,^ 

One of the tax proposals, the increase in 
expensing for investment, will continue to 
decline in revenue cost. This provision loses 
$1 billion in the last year, and will probably 
become quite small. This decline can be 
readily seen in the revenue estimates. 

Two of the tax proposals — capital gains 
and IRAs — will be likely to lose much larger 
sums in the future. This trend can also be 
seen in the revenue estimates presented. 

First, the prospective capital gains provi- 
sion begins at a very small revenue loss be- 
cause it initially indexes only the small 
amount of inflation on newly purchased as- 
sets. The revenue loss grows rapidly. At 1998 
levels of income, the long run steady state 
cost of capital gains indexing is estimated at 
about $26 billion.' 


1978. pp. s3-s27: Barry Bosworth. Tax Incentives and 
Economic Grouth. Washington DC: Brookings Insti- 
tution. 1984; A. Lans Bovenberg, Tax Policy and .Na- 
tional Savings in the United States: A Survey. .Vu- 
tional Tax Journal, v 42. June. 1989. pp. 123-138: Irwin 
Friend and Joel Hasbrouck. Saving and After Tax 
Rates of Return. The Review of Economics and Statis- 
tics. V. 65, November. 1983. pp. 537-543: E. Philip 
Howry and Saul H Hymans. The Measurement and 
Determination of Loanable Funds Savings. Brook- 
ings Papers on Economic Activity. No. 3. 1978. pp. 655- 
705: John Makin and Kenneth A Couch. .Savings. 
Pension Contributions, and the Heal Interest Rate. 
The-Kevieu of Economics and Statistics, v 71, August. 
1989. pp 401-407 Economic theory suggests that 
IRAs are not likely to increase savings becau.se most 
participants are at the limit and have no tax incen- 
tive at the margin, leaving only an income effect 
that tends to reduce savings. Although some studies 
of IRAs have found a positive savings effect, those 
studies have been the subject of some criticism; oth- 
ers have found no effect. See Jane G. Gravelle. Do 
Individual Retirement Accounts Increase Savings? 
Journal of Economic Perspectives. 5. .Spring. 1991. pp. 
13-148. for a review. 

'The cutbacks in spending on mass transportation 
and highways would also have an effect to the ex- 
tent that they reduce the stock of public capital, al- 
though these effects might not show up in measured 
GNP 

'The current baseline is estimated at $162 billion 
at 1993 income levels, and indexing is estimated to 
result in the equivalent of a 51 percent exclusion. At 
current levels the revenue loss, assuming a 25.7 per- 
cent average marginal tax rate, is $22.5 billion (0 257 
$162 billion 0.54). Based on recent research on the re- 
alizations response, we include a behavioral re- 
sponse that will increase realizations by about 15 
percent. (See Jane G. Gravelle. Limits to Capital 
Gains Feedback Effects. Congressional Research 
Service Report 91-250. March 15. 1991. and Leonard E. 
Burman and William C. Randolph. Measuring Per- 


The 


Secondly, the IRA provisions will grow 
rapidly over time given the increase in funds 
built uj) in these tax exempt accounts. We es- 
timate this long run revenue cost to be ap- 
proximately $14 billion anmially at 1998 in- 
come levels. 

The excess of the capital gains and IRA 
provisions over the amounts reported in the 
estimated data would be $32 billion in 1998. 
Netting out the $1 billion cost of the depre- 
ciation provision against the $3 billion of 
savings from the Federal retirement pro- 
gram (that will reverse sign) results in an 
additional cost in excess of $34 billion in 1998. 
This incriease in the budget deficit will large- 
ly come out of private savings investment. 
Hence, the proposal taken as a whole would 
be expected to reduce overall savings and the 
long run level of output. 

.MATERIALS SUPPLIED BY THE MINORITY STAFF 
OF THE JOI.NT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

le Minority staff of the Joint Economic 
Committee provided two documents that 
they indicated were relevant to the jobs esti- 
mates. 

The first document was a one page sum- 
mary estimating the effects of the IRA pro- 
vision done by Roger Brinner of Data Re- 
sources Inc. It predicted an eventual increase 
of 250.000 jobs. This model is a standard 
short-run macroeconomic model with unem- 
plpyed resources. The simulation, however, 
could not have been a standard simulation of 
the IRA provision in the proposal, since the 
IRA provision actually raises money in the 
short run. Such a straightforward simulation 
should have produced a contractionary effect 
of negligible magnitude. It appears from a 
footnote that the expansionary effect may 
reflect an assumption that individuals will 
withdraw and spend large amounts from 
IRAs. presumably because of penalty free 
withdrawals for certain purposes — that is. 
that the provision will provide a reduction in 
saving that will be quite large. We know of 
no evidence to support such an assumption. 

The second document is a paper entitled 
•Capital, Taxes and Growth", by Gary Rob- 
bins and Aldona Robbins (National Center 
for Policy Analysis). This paper does not pro- 
vide a direct estimate of jobs for the pro- 
posal but rather outlines a model that appar- 
ently reflects some of the underlying meth- 
odology. This model is essentially a long run 
growth model as discussed in the previous 
sections and does not really address the con- 
sequences in the next few years since it has 
no adjustment path. This model would pre- 
dict that reductions in tax burdens would in- 
crease output in the long run. because it as- 
sumes an infinitely elastic savings response. 
As noted above, the empirical literature does 
not necessarily support a savings response: 
even in the study where positive elasticities 
are found, the response is small. Because of 
the infinite savings elasticity, deficits do not 
reduce savings and investment. 


RETIREMENT OF PHIL DECELLE 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise 
today to honor a dedicated teacher and 
Old friend, Phil Decelle on the occasion 
of his retirement. As a devoted father 
and husband, Phil personifies the 
moral strength and patriotism that has 
made a difference in the lives of so 
many. 


manerit Responses to Capital Gains Tax Changes in 
Panel Data. Forthcoming. American Economic Re- 
views The number is increased to 1998 levels to re- 
flect a 6 percent annual nominal growth. 


"\ 


May 28, 1993 

I first met Phil Decelle in 1970 when 
he was the social studies department 
head at Kingswood Regional High 
School of Wolfeboro. NH. Under the di- 
rection of Robert Morrison, the prin- 
cipal of Kingswood. Phil hired me as a 
social stufiies teacher. I am very grate- 
ful to him for that position. If it had 
not been for Phil, I may not be where 
I am today. 

During his 29 years of teaching. Phil 
Decelle was committed to excellence in 
education. I was always impressed with 
his command of the subject matter 
that he taught. Furthermore, Phil 
showed great concern and care for his 
students. Over the years, I have talked 
to a number of student who have told 
me how much they have benefited from 
his teaching and personal concern. 

Beyond his teaching responsibilities, 
Phil gave freely of his time to students 
outside of the classroom. He volun- 
teered to serve on my Academy Board 
for the past 9 years, which reviews stu- 
dent applications for the service acad- 
emies. Phil has helped almost 300 
young men and women to realize their 
dream of attending one of the four 
military service academies. 

As Phil embraces retirement, he can 
now concentrate on his love of fishing. 
There are now no more excuses for not 
locating the big fish because he will 
have plenty of time to look! And, many 
of his friends want to know where it is. 

Again. I wish Phil and his wife, Joan, 
many happy years of retirement. I 
thank them for 23 years of good friend- 
ship, which I know will continue. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12013 


CONCLUSION OF MORNING 
BUSINESS 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning 
business is closed. 


CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING LIMIT 
AND ELECTION REFORM ACT OF 
1993 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ate will resume consideration of S. 3, 
which the clerk will report. 
The legislative clerk read as follows: 
A bill (S. 3) entitled 'Congressional Spend- 
ing Limit and Election Reform Act of 1993." 

The Senate resumed consideration of 
the bill. 
Pending: 

(1) Mitchell'Ford'Boren amendment No. 
366. in the nature of a substitute. 

(2) Bingaman amendment No. 384 (to 
amendment No. 366). to condemn the 
extraconstitutional and antidemocratic ac- 
tions of President Serrano of Guatemala. 

Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the' Chair. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator from New Mexico. 

A.MENDMENT NO. 384 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I 
wish to speak for a few minutes on this 
amendment that is now pending. Am I 
correct that the pending amendment is 
the Bingaman amendment? 


The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator is correct. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the 
amendment which I did send to the 
desk yesterday and which is the pend- 
ing amendment is a very straight- 
forward amendment. It states that the 
Senate agrees with the position of our 
President in condemning the actions 
that the President of Guatemala took 
on Tuesday morning when he disbanded 
the Congress, disbanded the Supreme 
Court, put in place censorship of all 
news media, and essentially suspended 
the effect of their Constitution. 

The President condemned that ac- 
tion. In my view the Senate should be 
on record as condemning that action. 
It is consistent with our commitment 
to democracy in Latin America and 
throughout the world! I believe strong- 
ly that this is an issue about which we 
should make a statement. 

The amendment was introduced on 
Wednesday by me and various cospon- 
sors. It was referred to the Foreign Re- 
lations Committee. It was on their 
agenda yesterday, Thursday, but ef- 
forts to have action taken on the 
amendment were blocked by the rank- 
ing member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee at that time. It was my un- 
derstanding that he felt the criticism 
of President Serrano's position was un- 
fair and objected to the substance of 
the resolution, which he had a right to 
do. 

Because the Foreign Relations Com- 
mittee was prevented from acting, and 
because the issue appeared to me ur- 
gent, last night I offered it as an 
amendment to this campaign finance 
bill. It was not my intention to delay 
progress on campaign finance reform. 
It was my hope that the Senate could 
proceed quickly to have a short debate 
on the issue and have a vote, at least a 
voice vote on the issue, and come out 
in support of President Clinton's 
policy. 

I was informed last night that the 
Republican ranking member objected 
to us proceeding to a vote, and that if 
necessary the Republican leader would 
raise objections and prevent the Senate 
from going to any other business, pre- 
vent the Senate from taking any other 
action until this matter was with- 
drawn. 

In essence, I was informed that the 
Republican side of the aisle was pre- 
pared to filibuster in order to prevent 
the Senate from expressing an opinion 
on this issue. 

I was also informed that unless the 
amendment was withdrawn, the Repub- 
lican^ji^uld raise objections to the 
Senare considering various nomina- 
tions that have come out of the For- 
eign Relations Committee, four of 
those in particular: The President's 
nominee, Marilyn McAfee, of Florida, a 
career member ok the Senior Foreign 
Service to be the Embassador to Gua- 
temala; William Thornton Pryce, of 




Pennsylvania, a career member of the 
Senior Foreign Service to be the Am- 
bassador to Honduras; John Shattuck, 
of Massachusetts, to be the Assistant 
Secretary of State for Human Rights 
and Humanitarian Affairs; and James 
Richard Cheek, of Arkansas, a career 
member of the Senior Foreign Service 
as Ambassador to Argentina. 

Mr. President, if anyone wonders why 
the people of the country have lost 
confidence in the Congress, and why 
the people have lost patience with 
gridlock here in Washington, in my 
view this is a classic example of the 
problem. 

The Senate is not being permitted to 
vote in a straightforward way on a 
straightforward resolution, even a 
voice vote, because the Republican mi- 
nority in the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee objects to a vote occurring. 
Not only are we not permitted to vote, 
I am informed that the Republican mi- 
nority will block approval of adminis- 
tration nominees in order to keep the 
Senate from denouncing what I see as a 
blatantly illegal and unconstitutional 
act by a head of state in this hemi- 
sphere. 

I would ask the minority manager of 
the bill if I am correctly stating the 
position of the Republican side? If the 
manager would advise whether or not a 
vote on this amendment is possible 
today, I would appreciate that. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator from Kentucky is recognized. 

Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my 
friend from New Mexico that there is 
objection to voting on this amendment 
in connection with this bill at this 
time. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me ask further, 
am I correct in the information I re- 
ceived last night that the Republican 
side also objects to proceeding with the 
votes or confirmation of these four ap- 
pointees until this matter is with- 
drawn? 

Mr. McCONNELL. I cannot respond 
to that. I can check on that and let the 
Senator know. 

Mr.' BINGAMAN. Could the Senator 
advise me as to whether there are holds 
on these nominees? Does the Senator 
know if there are holds on those nomi- 
nations? 

Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will 
withhold, I will try to give him an an- 
swer. But in any event, I think it is 
fairly safe to say there will not be a 
vote on the Bingaman amendment on 
this bill. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am just trying to 
determine whether or not the fact that 
the amendment is pending is a reason 
for Republican opposition to going for- 
ward with these nominees. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I 
say to my friend from New Mexico, I 
will be glad to try to answer his ques- 
tion. I do not have personal knowledge 
of that, but I will be glad to try to an- 
swer his question. 


12014 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


Mr. BINGAMAN. I would appreciate 
being informed of that if the Senator 
could. 

Mr. President, I do not wish to delay 
the Senate. I know the majority leader 
is anxious to get on to additional 
amendments. My purpose has been to 
shine a light on what I see as blatantly 
illegal actions by the President of Gua- 
temala. I think this is a serious issue. 
This country needs to reaffirm our 
commitment to supporting democracy 
throughout Latin America. 

In order to force the issue. I would 
have to greatly inconvenience the Sen- 
ate. And if my information that I re- 
ceived last night is correct. I would 
also evidently have to be willing to 
delay, or sit by and watch the delay of 
the confirmation of various of these 
nominees, whom I know the President 
is anxious to put into key positions. 

So depending upon the actions that 
are taken in Guatemala in the next few 
days. I think we will have additional 
opportunities to visit this issue. I in- 
tend to continue to pursue this issue on 
the Senate floor. I think it is an impor- 
tant issue for our country on which to 
focus. 

Mr. President, in deference to the 
majority leader and the rest of my col- 
leagues and those who are wishing to 
vote on some amendments before we 
leave for recess, I will withdraw the 
amendment at this time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator has that right. The amendment is 
withdrawn. 

The amendment (No. 384) was with- 
drawn. 

Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ma- 
jority leader. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, as I 
indicated in writing to the Members of 
the Senate over a month ago. and as I 
stated publicly here on the Senate 
floor each and every day this week, it 
is my hope and expectation, my inten- 
tion, that the Senate will vot^ in rela- 
tion to amendments to this bill today. 
I understand the Senator from Arizona 
is prepared to proceed with his amend- 
ment; the Senator from Florida has 
two amendments. My understanding is 
he will take a relatively brief period of 
time. 

So I hope that we can — I thank the 
Senator froni New Mexico for his cour- 
tesy. I regret that he has been pre- 
vented from obtaining a vote on his 
measure. But I thank him for the 
statement and withdrawing the amend- 
ment. 

I hope that we can now proceed and 
dispose of some of these amendments. I 
believe they can be disposed of prompt- 
ly one way or the other or that we can 
complete this session, and complete ac- 
tion on those measures today early 
enough so that Senators may not be in- 
convenienced. 

Mr. McCONNELL addressed the 
Chair. 


The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator from Kentucky. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Very briefly, be- 
fore we return to amendments, Mr. 
President, there are two excellent arti- 
cles, one in Roll Call, and one in the 
Washington Post, yesterday that I 
would like to make colleagues made 
aware of. One is by George Will enti- 
tled "Selling Out the First Amend- 
ment." I ask unanimous consent that 
that be printed in the Record, along 
with the article in Roll Call by Prof. 
Larry Sabato of the University of Vir- 
ginia, in opposition to spending limits, 
and also making a point that most aca- 
demics in America are opposed to the 
spending limits — I ask unanimous con- 
sent they be printed in the Record. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

[From the Washington Post. May 27. 1993] 

Selling Out the Fir.st Amendme.nt 

(By George F. Will) 

Truck scales will be needed to weigh the 
printed words spoken in coming weeks on 
campaign finance reform. Yet the only cam- 
paign law appropriate for a free society 
would contain just four words: 'No cash; full 
disclosure." 

One reason "reform" is being pushed is to 
defuse the drive for term limitations for sen- 
ators and congressmen. But the reform bill 
beitig debated in the Senate is fresh evidence 
of the need for term limits. It proves that 
the political class in its quest for protected 
incumbency would trample the Constitution. 

The bill would create an at least $200 mil- 
lion (and indexed to rise) entitlement for 
politicians in order to empower the govern- 
ment to stipulate the permissible amount of 
political speech. The bill offers incentives" 
for candidates to accept taxpayer financing 
in exchange for spending limits. But the in- 
centives are blatantly coercive. 

The consensus of professional politicians 
and professional reformers is that political 
spending is "too high. ' But when congres- 
sional campaign spending in 1992 was 52 per- 
cent higher than in 1990. that was a sign of 
civic health— a 68 percent increase in the 
number of candidates. The 470 House and 
Senate elections in 1992 cost 1678 million, 
about 40 percent of the sum Americans spent 
on yogurt. 

Spending limits generally handicap chal- 
lengers' abilities to compensate for incum- 
bents' advantages— name recognition, access 
to media, franked mail, the use of modern 
government's myriad favor-buying activi- 
ties. A ban on contributions by political ac- 
tion committees would simply cause more 
money to come into the process from indi- 
vidual contributors, or as 'soft" money 
spent on behalf of candidates by non-party 
organizations like labor unions. (The bill 
bans "soft" money for parties, a traditional 
Republican advantage. Democrats benefit 
disproportionately from non-party soft 
money, so the bill leaves that unrestricted.) 

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has held 
that the First Amendment requires solicit- 
ousness 'for the indispensable conditions of 
meaningful communication." Because soap 
boxes and stumps are inadequate venues for 
the dissemination of opinions to a complex 
continental nation, the court has given con- 
stitutional status to the thought that 
"money talks." Spending is indispensable for 
effective free political speech. To limit the 


former is to limit the latter. The court has 
held that mandatory spending limits are un- 
constitutional; it almost certainly would 
hold the new bill's provisions unconsti- 
tutionally coercive. ^.^^ 

Under its provisions, a cStndidate who re- 
fused to take tax dollars in exchange for 
spending limits would be denied the broad- 
casting and postal discounts given to govern- 
ment-funded candidates. And if the privately 
funded candidate exceeded the speech lim- 
its—that's what spending limits are— that 
the government-funded candidate is held to, 
the government-funded candidate would get 
a much more than merely a compensating 
infusion of additional tax dollars. The pen- 
alties for a privately funded candidate ex- 
ceeding the government speech ration also 
include clearly punitive bookkeeping re- 
quirements. 

Furthermore, with amazing crudeness the 
bill would require all privately funded can- 
didates to include in their broadcast adver- 
tisements the statement that "the candidate 
has not agreed to voluntary campaign lim- 
its." An American Civil Liberties Union dis- 
section of the bill tartly notes that the bill's 
sponsors would not consider the following an 
acceptable alternative statement: "The can- 
didate has chosen not to sell his First 
Amendment rights to the government in 
order to be permitted to spend tax dollars." 
Fortunately, the court has held that the 
First Amendment protects the freedom to 
choose "both what to say and what not to 
say." 

Because money is fungible, attempts to 
regulate it in order to ration speech must 
beget a huge speech-policing bureaucracy 
and a mare's nest of rules. Suppose candidate 
Smith favors, and candidate Jones opposes, 
intervention in Bosnia. Suppose citizen 
Green runs a substantial advertising cam- 
paign opposing intervention. Is that a "soft 
money" contribution to Jones? If Smith is 
taxpayef-financed and Jones is not, would 
Green's expenditure trigger a "compensat- 
ing" taxpayer subsidy to Smith? Imagine 
how gargantuan the Federal Elections Com- 
mission will be when it is policing permis- 
sible speech in upward of a thousand Senate 
and House primary and general elections 
every two years. 

The court has held that "it is not the gov- 
ernment, but the people— individually as 
citizens and candidates and collectively as 
associations and political committees — who 
must retain control over the quantity and 
range of debate on public issues in a political 
campaign." Were the political class serious 
about opening the political process and lev- 
eling the field for challengers and incum- 
bents, the political class would turn not to 
public financing, which the public opposes, 
but to term limits, which 75 percent of the 
public favors. 

True, public financing would eliminate 
fund-raising, the most tii'esome aspect of ca- 
reers devoted to politics. But there should 
not be such careers. And until the political 
class will accede to term limits— or. what is 
much the same thing, until it will allow a 
constitutional amendment limiting terms to 
be considered by the states — nothing should 
be done to make the life of the political class 
less disagreeable. 

(From Roll Call. May 27, 1993) 

Guest Observer 

(By Larry J. Sabato ) 

SPENDI.NG LLMITS: BETTER PRAY THE GOD OF 
GRIDLOCK STEPS IN 

It's baaack. Campaign finance reform, that 
persistent modern crusade to achieve the 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12015 


unachievable, has appeared again on the ho- 
rizon. Democrats, Republicans, and Ross 
Perot independents are hawking plans to fix 
the system that produces a so-called Con- 
gressional money chase. 

These efforts are well intentioned. for the 
most part, but misguided and futile. Once 
again, all the bad reform ideas that sound 
good are being dressed up and put on legisla- 
tive display. Spending limits are foremost 
among them. 

The most compelling argument against 
this idea was unwittingly provided by Mi- 
chael Waldman. the Clinton Administra- 
tion's point man on campaign finance. 

Waldman told the Washington Post what 
reform critics have been trying to tell pol- 
icymakers for years: "Where you put up a 
wall, the mone.v will eventually find its way 
to flow around * * * " 

The First Amendment makes it impossible 
to stop the flow of political money. When 
you dam it in one place, it merely cuts an- 
other channel or begins moving freely under- 
ground, undisclosed. Artificial spending lim- 
its will inevitably increase constitutionally 
unlimited "independent " expenditures as 
well as nonparty soft money that often has a 
hidden partisan agenda. 

Spending limits also will have other unfor- 
tunate, presumably unintended, con- 
sequences. For example, they will help the 
haves and hurt the have-nots. Well-organized 
individuals and PACs. who can give early in 
the election cycle before a candidate's limit 
is reached, will h^ve an advantage. Poorer, 
late-orgaii fttng -fnterests will be at an even 
greater disadvantage. 

Moreover, spending limits are unlikely to 
provea boon to challengers, contrary to the 
claims of advocates. Incumbents, for in- 
stance, will always be in a much better posi- 
tion than challengers to take advantage of 
the loopholes in spending limits, loopholes 
that will be quickly discovered or invented 
by the teams of ingenious campaign finance 
lawyers at their beck and call. 

And let's not forget about incumbents' ac- 
cess to hundreds of thousands of dollars of 
tax-financed re-election perks— mass- 
mailings, mobile offices, etc.— every election 
cycle. 

The continuing attack on PACs is another 
suspect item on the reformers' agenda. Polit- 
ical action committees, representing inter- 
est group activity, are a completely natural 
and inevitable part of a robust electoral sys- 
tem. Since most PACs have hundreds, thou- 
sands, even millions of members, why is a 
contribution limit of just five times a single 
person's limit (S5.000 vs. Sl.OOO) considered so 
outrageous? 

Most of the reformers' other proposals are 
also deeply flawed. Take full or partial tax- 
payer-financing of camjjaigns. Have its advo- 
cates noted the near-collapse of public par- 
ticipation in the presidential SI income 
check off? Or consider bundling, another fa- 
vorite target of the reformers. As long as 
bundling is fully disclosed, how is it worse 
than any of the alternatives? 

Finally, some Republicans are enthralled 
with the notion of eliminating or reducing 
donations from people who are not among a 
legislator's constituents. This proposal ig- 
nores the seniority system, which guaran- 
tees that some Members of Congress are 
more equal than others, with the power to 
transform the lives of non-constituents. 

There are other reforms that would actu- 
ally do some good, but they have little 
chance of enactment. Free, non-taxpayer 
funded grants of substantial broadcast time 
for political parties and candidates have long 


been high up on the list of desirable changes, 
but the broadcasting lobby will fight it to 
the death. Full tax credits for small, individ- 
ual contributions would encourage the least 
self-interested donations, but the budget def- 
icit cannot stand the drain of a hundred mil- 
lion dollars or more annually. 

The best reform of all would be a require- 
ment for true full disclosure of political 
money across the board, including political 
party, corporate, and labor expenditures of 
all kinds at all levels. 

Coupled with this no-exceptions disclosure 
rule should come a considerable increase in 
the funding of the Federal Election Commis- 
sion so that the FEC could help the press and 
public interest groups quickly consolidate 
and analyze more fundraising data before 
each election. 

Before these good ideas have a chance of 
enactment, though, the bad ideas will have 
to go. It's true that defending the status quo 
of unlimited spending, PAC contributions, 
bundling, and soft money has become work 
reserved for heretics and tenured academics. 
"Vet the current superstructure of campaign 
finance becomes far more palatable when 
compared with the proposed alternatives. 

President Clinton is fond of attacking the 
■•guardians of gridlock," who he says have 
stifled changes in the past. In a number of 
cases the President is right, but in the in- 
stance of campaign finance reform, the unin- 
tended (and some of the intended) con- 
sequences of many sweet-sounding reform 
proposals should give us pause. It may be 
time to pray to the god of gridlock and beg 
for intercession. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, also 
recapping briefly, the debate, we have 
handled 6 Republican amendments, and 
12 Democratic amendments this :week;^ 
2 very important amendments were 
dealt with yesterday. One, I think 
probably the most important amend- 
ment we will deal with on this bill, was 
the question of whether or not the Sen- 
ate was going to go on record in favor 
of amending the first amendment for 
the first time in 200 years. We have 
never done that biefore. 

The Senators previously stated as re- 
cently as a few years ago, I heard the 
majority leader as a matter of fact say- 
ing the first amendment should never 
be amended under any circumstances 
ever. Fortunately, the Senate yester- 
day came up 15 votes short of what 
would be required to a pass a constitu- 
tional amendment resolution in this 
body. So I think it is safe to say for 
those who revere the first amendment 
that there is no chance that the first 
amendment will be in fact amended in 
the U.S. Senate in connection with the 
issue of campaign finance reform. 

So, Mr. President, I am happy— I see 
Senator DeConcini is here. We are 
ready to do business. I yield the floor. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I in- 
quire of the Senator from Arizona 
whether he would be willing to accept 
a time limitation on his amendment. 

Mr. DECONCINI. I am. I was not here 
last night, Mr. Leader. I thought we 
had got an hour limitation. 

Mr. MITCHELL. There was no agree- 
ment possible last evening. 

Mr. DeCONCINI. Yes. I do not think 
I will take a full 30 minutes. An hour 


equally divided would be fine. I wiM try 
to yield back before that. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Would the Senator 
be agreeable to a 40-minute time limi- 
tation? 

Mr. DECONCINI. The majority leader 
is so persuasive. I cannot turn him 
down. 

ORDER OF PROCEDURE 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Arizona be recognized to offer his 
amendment, that there be 40 minutes 
of debate equally divided and con- 
trolled in the usual form on the amend- 
ment, that there be no second-degrees 
or motions to recommit, that on the 
completion or yielding back of time on 
the debate that the vote occur on or in 
relation to the Senator's amendment. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 
objection? Without objection, it so or- 
dered. 

Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeCosci.m]. 

.•\.ME.\DMENT NO. 388 

(Purpose: To reduce the spending limits for 
eligible Senate Candidates) 
Mr. DeCONCINI. _Mr. President, I 
send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will report. 

„The legislative clerk read as follows: 
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeConcini] 
proposes an amendment numbered 388. 

Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, there 
is an amendment already there bearing 
my name. This is a slightly modified 
one. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- 
sent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 8. line 18. strike ■67 percent "" and 
insert '50 percent". 

On page 12. line 25. strike •$1,200,000 " and 
insert -sgOO.OOO ". 

On page 13. line 12. strike "30 cents" and 
insert "21 cents ". 

On page 13, line 5. strike "25 cents" and in- 
sert 'IS cents ". 

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, last 
November the citizens of this country 
voted loudly and clearly for change. 
Among the highest on their list were 
the changes in campaign finance re- 
form, having been disillusioned by the 
inordinate amount of time that can- 
didates spend raising money, and about 
the amount of money that is spent; and 
they have learned that incumbents, the 
entrenched politicians can raise that 
money. Quite frankly, I think they are 
tired of the 30-second sound bites on 
our television screens selling their 
message rather than campaigning and 
talking to people. 

The legislation which we are debat- 
ing today addresses many of these is- 
sues. I commend President Clinton, 
Senate majority leader Mitchell, ma- 


12016 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


jority whip Ford, and the Senator from 
Oklahoma. Senator BoREN, for their ef- 
forts to restore public confidence in 
our election process. However. Mr. 
President, quite frankly. I believe that 
this bill falls way short of true reform. 

I understand how this process works 
having been here for 17 years. But you 
know, if we do not really limit the 
amount of money we are going to not 
have accomplished any meaningful re- 
form. 

Today. I am introducing and have be- 
fore the Senate an amendment to S. 3 
that would further limit voluntary 
spending. Without substantial vol- 
untary spending limits there will be no 
real campaign finance reform. The vol- 
untary spending limits that I am rec- 
ommending are lower than those con- 
tained in the leadership amendment 
before us today and lower than those 
passed in the campaign reform in the 
101st and 102d Congress. Although the 
legislation before us halts skyrocket- 
ing campaign spending, it does not go 
far enough in this Senator's view. The 
spending limits that I am suggesting 
would guarantee that fully half of the 
Senate races would be kept below $1.5 
million. For a general election the 
limit in my amendment would be 
$400,000 plus 21 cents for each voter up 
to 4 million voters, plus 18 cents for 
each voter over 4 million voters with a 
minimum limit of $900,000 and a maxi- 
mum limit of $5.5 million. Primary 
election spending would be limited to 
only 50 percent of the general limits. 
This formula further cuts spending and 
provides realistic fundraising goals for 
challengers. 

As the spending limits in the bill be- 
fore us, S. 3, are meant to reduce the 
power of incumbents, campaign war 
chests, and create competitive Senate 
elections. While these limitjfe will in- 
deed prevent incumbents from amass- 
ing large campaign funds, and the 
broadcast and postal benefits will in- 
crease the ability of challengers to 
counter the inherent communication 
advantages of incumbency, the spend- 


ing limits in this bill do not safeguard 
against the significant discrepancies 
that exist and will continue to exist be- 
tween the contributions incumbents 
and challengers are able to raise. 

The Senate has an obligation to en- 
sure the scales are balanced, and Mr. 
President. I believe that this amend- 
ment before us will help bridge this 
fundraising gap. 

Mr. President, we must establish a 
system that is fair to the challengers 
as well as to incumbents. We must set 
realistic and obtainable spending lim- 
its. With a challenger in a State with a 
voting age population of under 3 mil- 
lion people seeing a spending limit of 
just over 2 million as tolerable. Mr. 
President, I do not think that they will 
consider that as a real reform. 

In 1992, 15 of the 34 Senate chal- 
lengers faced incumbents in States 
with voting age populations under 3 
million. According to FEC figures 
these challengers on the average raised 
and spent only $810,000 over $1.1 million 
below the spending limits set forth in 
this bill before us. Let us be honest 
about it. These challengers could have 
spent more money if they could have 
raised more money. Fundraising condi- 
tions will not be different in 1994. 1996, 
or 1998. Incumbents will not have dif- 
ficulty raising the additional $1.1 mil- 
lion, challengers will. This is not level- 
ing the playing field. 

Mr. President, the spending limits in 
my amendment may be viewed as only 
a few cents here and a few cents there. 
But pennies add up to dollars, and dol- 
lars add up to hundreds of thousands of 
dollars. My amendment would reduce 
the cost of running a Senate primary 
and general election campaign in the 
State with a voting age population of 
under 2 million to only $1,350,000; 
$650,000 less than this legislation rec- 
ommends, and would substantially re- 
duce the spending limits for States 
with large voting age population. S. 23 
would allow a Senate candidate in Ari- 
zona to spend over $2 million. This 
amendment would limit that amount 

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM/STATE 


May 28, 1993 

to $1,446,000. over 


down in Arizona 
$500,000 less. 

Let me give you a few for instances: 
California candidate spending under 
this bill would be $9.18 million, and is 
reduced to $6.7 million. In Florida, it 
would come down from $5,290,000 to $3.5 
million, a difference of $1,740,000. In the 
State of Michigan, it is the same kind 
of reduction. 

I have a State-by-State breakdown 
that I would be happy to share with my 
colleagues here, and I will put a copy of 
it in the Record. It points out in every 
State, including my State of Arizona, 
what the reductions would be between 
the DeConcini amendment and S. 3, 
which is before us today. 

I want to share one more statistic 
with you. In 1992, Mr. President, Senate 
general election candidates spent 
$195,320,000. The piece of legislation be- 
fore us reduces this total by less than 
$1 million. I do not consider that mean- 
ingful reform. Not only must we stop 
the runaway cost of Senate elections, 
we must turn the train around. The 
spending limits in my legislation 
would reduce spending by an additional 
$62 million. It is time that we reverse 
the spending trend. ^ - 

Mr. President, we have an oppor- 
tunity to institute the change the Con- 
gress truly needs and the American 
people desperately want. Let us have 
some courage to do it. This chart dem- 
onstrates what, in 1992, was spent on 
the Senate general election and what, 
in 1999, will be spent, if this bill is 
passed. The difference is that it will be 
spent more equally if this bill "is passed 
which is a positive. But it is not a real 
reduction in spending. The amendment 
before us would reduce it $62 million. I 
ask unanimous consent that the table. 
I referred to earlier be printed in the 
Record. 

There being no objection, the chart 
was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 


General limit 


Pfimaiv limit 


Cycle limit 


AP 

DeConcmi amend- 

S 3 

DeConcini amend- 

S 3 

DeConcini amend- 

S 3 


ment 

ment 

ment 

3011 

1.033.780 

1,305 400 

516890 

874618 

1 550,670 

2.180.018 

391 

900,000 

1.200,000 

450 000 

804 000 

1350,000 

2.004.000 

2 740 

975,400 

1.222000 

487.700 

818 740 

1463100 

2,040.740 

1746 

900.000 

1,200 000 

450.000 

804 000 

1,350,000 

2 004.000 

22218 

4.519 240 

5,500,000 

2259.620 

3685 000 

6778.860 

9185.000 

2.493 

923,530 

1,200,000 

461.765 

804 000 

1385,295 

2,004.000 

2 527 

930,670 

1,200000 

465 335 

804 000 

1 3% 005 

2004,000 

.U2 

900,000 

1200,000 

450,000 

804 000 

1,350 000 

2,004,000 

mm 

2,370,400 

3,170000 

1.185,200 

2,123,900 

3,555,600 

2,593,900 

urn 

1392 640 

1,812000 

696 320 

1214040 

2088,960 

3026,040 

- Mm 

900.000 

1,200 000 

450 000 

804 000 

1,350,000 

2004 000 

m 

900,000 

1200 000 

450 000 

804 000 

1350 000 

2,004.000 

u« 

2,058,100 

2736 250 

1029 050 

1,833,287 

3,087150 

4,569537 

*.m 

1,265 920 

1636 000 

632 960 

1,096,120 

1,898,880 

2,732,120 

;>jM 

900,000 

1,200 000 

450 000 

804.000 

1,350,000 

2004,000 

m 

900,000 

1,200000 

450 000 

804.000 

1350,000 

2,004,000 

w 

978.340 

1,226200 

489.170 

821554 

1467,510 

2,047,754 

}.en 

1,033 780 

1.305 400 

516,890 

874618 

1550,670 

2,180.018 

m 

900.000 

1,200.000 

450,000 

804 000 

1350 000 

2.004.000 

36» 

1,168 390 

1497,700 

584,195 

1003.459 

1752.585 

2,501.159 

4622 

1,351,960 

1,755500 

675,980 

1176185 

2,027 940 

2,931.685 

6884 

1,759120 

2321.000 

879,560 

1,555.070 

2638,680 

3,876070 

3.243 

1.081,030 

1372 900 

540515 

919843 

1621,545 

2,292,743 

1.841 

900.000 

1. 200.000 

450.000 

804,000 

1,350.000 

2.0O4.000 


State 
Alabama 
Alaska 
Atiiani 
Arkansas 
California 

Colotado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Florida 

Georgia 

Hawaii . 

Idaho ..^ 

Illinois 

Indiana 
Iowa 

Kansas 

Kemuclij ... 

Louisiana ._ 

Miiw 

Masudiusettj , 

Mcliiian 

Muiiwsott 

Mnsissiwi 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM/STATE— Continued 


12017 


General limit 


Primary limit 


ancle limit 


VAP 


DeConcini amend- 
ment 


S 3 


DeConcini amend 
n*nt 


S 3 


DeConcini amend- 
ment 


S 3 


Missouri 

Montana _ _. 

Netraskj 

Nevada „ 

New HampsMre . 

New Ifiti 

New Meiict) 

New York ., 

North Carotma . 

Nortli Dakoti 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

0r»(on 

Pennsytvania .. 
Rhode Island . 
South Carolina 
South Dakota 
lefinessec 

leias 

Utah 

Vermont ,.. 

Virginia _. 

Washington ^ 

West Virgimi 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming .„.. 


3 818 

585 

1158 

962 

824 

5 919 

1089 

13 691 

5094 

461 

8120 

2 330 

2174 

9132 

774 

2 622 
503 

3 723 
12380 

1128 
422 
4748 
3703 
1364 
3 644 
323 


1,201,780 
900.000 
900 000 
900.000 
900.000 

1.585,420 
900.000 

2984.380 

1.436 920 
900.000 

1.981600 
900.000 
900.000 

2.163.760 
900.000 
950,620 
900.000 

1.181830 

2,748,400 
900.000 
900.000 

1.374640 

1.177.630 
900.000 

1.165.240 
900.000 


1.545 400 
1.200 000 
1.200,000 
1,200 000 
1,200,000 
2,079750 
1,200 000 
4.022,750 
1,873,500 
1,200.000 
2,630,000 
1.200.000 
1200.000 
2,883.000 
1.200000 
1.200,000 
1.200,000 
1.516,900 
3.695.000 
1.200,000 
1.200000 
1.787.000 
1510,900 
1,200,000 
1,493,200 
1.200000 


600.890 
450 000 
450,000 
450,000 
450,000 
792710 
450,000 

1492,190 
718460 
450,000 
990,800 
450,000 

- 450 000 

1 081,880 
450,000 
475310 
450 000 
590915 

1.374,200 
450,000 
450,000 
687 320 
588815 
450 000 
582 620 
450 000 


1.035,418 
804 000 
804.000 
804 000 
804,000 

1393,432 
804 000 

2695,242 

1.255.245 
804,000 

1762,100 
804,000 
804,000 

1,931,610 
804.000 
804 000 
804.000 

1016323 

2475.650 
804.000 
804,000 

1,197 290 

1012,303 
804,000 

1000,444 
804 000 


1802.670 
1350000 
1350,000 
1350,000 
1.350,000 
2.378.130 
1.350.000 
4,476.570 
2155.380 
1,350,000 
2,972.400 
1.350.000 
1.350.000 
3.245.640 
1.350.000 
1,425,930 
1350,000 
1,772,745 
4,122.600 
1350.000 
1.350.000 
2061.960 
1.766,445 
1.350.000 
1747,860 
1350 000 


2 580,818 
2004.000 
2004.000 
2004 000 
2,004,000 
3473,182 
2004,000 
6717,992 

3 128,745 
2004.000 
4392,100 
2004.000 
2004.000 
4,814,610 
2,004,000 
2004,000 
2004,000 
2,533.223 
6170,650 
2,004,000 
2,004,000 
2984,290 
2523,203 
2,004.000 
2493,644 
2,004 000 


Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the 
amendment of the Senator from Ari- 
zona would certainly guarantee that no 
challenger again in America would win 
an election, unless he happened to be 
extremely well known in the begin- 
ning. I suppose Arnold Schwarzenegger 
would not have a problem with name 
identification or, say, a sitting Senator 
is running against the sitting Gov- 
ernor, who sits on top of the State gov- 
ernment is challenging the incumbent 
Senator. That person will not have any 
name identity problems. Certainly, 
there would be a distinct advantage 
against the incumbent. 

Typically speaking, under the 
amendment of the Senator from Ari- 
zona, the election of a challenger would 
be a rarity indeed, because the chal- 
lenger typically has one essential prob- 
lem; Nobody knows who he or she is. 
To the extent that you make commu- 
nication difficult or impossible in an 
election, the best-known candidate al- 
ways wins. 

The only thing I can say good about 
the amendment is, of course, it will not 
work. Spending limits are like putting 
a rock on Jell-0, and you can imagine 
what happens; it sort of oozes out the 
side in unlimited and undisclosed 
amounts. So the amendment would di- 
vert it in different directions. 

In the Presidential race it costs noth- 
ing to impede spending. You cannot be 
consistent with the first amendment 
and keep people from expressing them- 
selves or their favorite candidate, or 
against the candidate they dislike the 
most. That is why scholars across 
America, the overwhelming majority 
of them, who are certainly not Repub- 
licans, in the universities, think spend- 
ing limits are a goofy concoction. So 
all my friend has done is take a bad 
idea and make it worse. 

There is an interesting piece I re- 
ferred to earlier this morning, by Prof. 
Larry Sabato from Virginia, on the 
spending limits issue. 


Professor Sabato says: 

Once again, all the bad reform ideas that 
sound good are being dressed up and put on 
legislative display. Spending limits are fore- 
most among them. 

The most compelling argument against 
this idea was unwittingly provided by Mi- 
chael Waldman. the Clinton Administra- 
tion's point man on campaign finance. 

Waldman told the Washington Post what 
reform critics have been trying to tell f>ol- 
icymakers for years: 'Where you put up a 
wall, the money will eventually find its way 
to now around. . ." 

The First Amendment makes it impossible 
to stop the flow of political money. When 
you dam it in one place, it merely cuts an- 
other channel or begins moving freely under- 
ground, undisclosed. Artificial spending lim- 
its will inevitably increase constitutionally 
unlimited ■independent" expenditures as 
well as nonparty soft money that often has a 
hidden partisan agenda. 

Spending limits also will have other unfor- 
tunate, presumably unintended. con- 
sequences. For example, they will help the 
haves and hurt the have-nots. Well-organized 
individuals and PACs. who can give early in 
the election cycle before a candidate's limit 
is reached, will have an advantage. Poorer, 
late-organizing interests will be at an even 
greater disadvantage. 

Moreover, spending limits are unlikely to 
prove a boon to challengers, contrary to the 
claims, of advocates. Incumbents, for in- 
stance, will always be in a much better posi- 
tion than challengers to take advantage of 
the loopholes in spending limits, loopholes 
that will be quickly discovered or invented 
by the teams of ingenuous campaign finance 
lawyers at their beck and call. 

Mr. President. I do not think there is 
much more you could say about this 
amendment. I am sure it sounds good 
to some. But as a practical matter, 
spending limits, in general, do not 
work. The more you lower them, the 
worse it gets. So to the extent you 
bring the limits down even further, you 
will have more black market money in 
politics, unlimited, undisclosed, sewer 
money, soft money, typically, by 
groups hiding behind the Tax Code. 

Just one other point, Mr. President. 
In looking at another article by a fel- 


low named Samuel Popkin, who has 
written a lot about the American elec- 
torate, he says in the Washington Post, 
on December 1, 1991: 

If the David Duke campaigrn had any en- 
during message for America, it was this: 
Competing with demagogues is expensive. 
Office-seekers who wish to sell a complicated 
message to an increasingly diffuse electorate 
must outspend their brassier opponents. 

Only a ■cheap " message can get through in 
a "cheap" campaign. It takes more time and 
money to communicate about complicated 
issues of governance than to communicate 
about race. Yet critics are once again calling 
for reforms that would curb campaign adver- 
tising and spending to protect gullible Amer- 
icans from the spiritual pollution of political 
snake-oil merchants. 

The fact is. our campaigns aren't broken, 
and don't need that kind of fixing. Voters are 
not passive victims of mass-media manipula- 
tors, and it is dangerous to assume that low- 
key "politically correct" campaigns would 
somehow eliminate the power of the visceral 
image. Restricting television news to the 
MacNeil Lehrer format — and requiring all 
the candidates to model their speeches on 
the Lincoln-Douglas debates — won't solve 
America's problems. 

He goes on, and it is an interesting 
article: 

If government is going to be able to solve 
our problems, we need bigger and noisier 
campaigns to rouse voters. It takes bigger, 
costlier campaigns to sell health insurance 
than to sell the death penalty: the cheaper 
the campaign, the cheaper the issue. Big 
Brother' is gaining on the public. Surveys 
show that voter perceptions about presi- 
dential candidates and their positions are 
more accurate at the end of campaigiis than 
at the beginning; there is no evidence that 
people learn less from campaigns today than 
they did in past years. 

Referring to the David Duke-Edwards 
election, he points out: 

The Duke-Edwards election shows that 
people will turn out to choose between a 
Nazi and a crook when the campaign is big 
enough to keep them mobilized. 

The real reason that voter turnout is down 
is that campaigns are not big enough to keep 
them tuned in. 


12018 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


That was written before the 1992 
campaign in which it went up 5 per- 
cent. Mr. President, that pretty well 
makes the case. I can see why Senators 
might want to support this. It would 
guarantee the re-election of all of us, 
because no unknown challenger would 
have a chance under this amendment 
and its provisions. 

I reserve the remainder of my time. 

Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, how 
much time does the Senator have re- 
maining? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator from Arizona has 12 minutes and 
28 seconds. 

Mr. DECONCINI. I ask for the yeas 
and nays on the amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 
sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I am 
going to be very short. In fact, it is so 
clear that challengers on average only 
were able to raise $810,000 in the last 
election cycle. So the argument that 
they will not be known just does not 
hold water. 

The fact is that when I ran in 1976, I 
was unknown. I spent a quarter of what 
my opponent spent. I like to think I 
got elected not by spending a lot of 
money but by doing a lot of hard work 
with people. 

What am I doing in 1994? I have to go 
out and raise millions of dollars. I want 
to campaign. I want to take my mes- 
sage to the people. That is what this 
campaign reform is all about. 

I would hope that our colleagues in 
this body would come forward and vote 
to do some meaningful reform. 

If the Senators from Kentucky and 
Oklahoma are prepared, I am prepared 
to yield the floor and pro«eed with the 
vote. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do Sen- 
ators yield back their time? 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I 
am prepared to yield back my time and 
proceed to the vote. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time 
has been yielded back. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk pro- 
ceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I 
ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 

All time has expired. 

The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment of the Senator from Ari- 
zona. On this question, the yeas and 
nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Sen- 
ator from Montana [Mr. B.^UCUS], the 
Senator from Delaware [Mr. BiDEN], 


the Senator Colorado [Mr. Campbell], 
the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. 
Daschle], the Senator from Nebraska 
[Mr. ExoN], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. 
Glenn], the Senator from Alabama 
[Mr. Heflin], the Senator from Hawaii 
[Mr. INOUYE], the Senator from Massa- 
chusetts [Mr. Kerry], the Senator from 
Texas [Mr. KRuioER], the Senator from 
West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], and 
the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
WoFFORD], are necessarily absent. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the 
Senator from Minnesota [Mr. DUREN- 
BERGER], the Senator from New Hamp- 
shire [Mr. Gregg], the Senator from 
North Carolina [Mr. Helms], the Sen- 
ator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords), the 
Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kasse- 
BAUM], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. 
McCain], the Senator from Arkansas 
[Mr. Murkowski], the Senator from 
Oklahoma [Mr. NiCKLES], and the Sen- 
ator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] are 
necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 
any other Senators in the Chamber de- 
siring to vote? 

The result was announced— yeas 26, 
nays 53, as follows: 

[RoUcall Vote No. 133 Leg.} 

YEAS— 26 


Bingaman 

Felngold 

Lieb*rman 

Boxer 

Feinstein 

Metzenbaum 

Brown 

Harkin 

Moseley-Braun 

Bryan 

Hatfield 

Pell 

Byrd 

Hollings 

Pryor 

Conrad 

Kennedy 

Reid 

DeConcini 

Kohl 

Simon 

Dodd 

Leahy 

Wellstone 

Dorian 

Levin 
' NAYS-53 


Akaka 

Faircloth 

Moynihan 

Bennett 

Ford 

Murray 

Bond 

Gorton 

Nunn 

Boren 

Graham 

Packwood 

Bradley 

Cramm 

Pressler 

Breaux 

Grassley 

Riegle 

Bumpers 

Hatch 

Robb 

Burns 

Johnston 

Roth 

Chafee 

Kempthorne 

Sarbanes 

Coats 

Kerrey 

Sasser 

Cochran 

Lautenberg 

Shelby 

Cohen 

Lott 

Simpson 

Coverdell 

Lugar 

Smith 

Craig 

Mack 

Specter 

D .\mato 

-Mathews 

Stevens 

Danforth 

McConnell 

Thurmond 

Dole 

Mikulski 

Warner 

Domenici 

Mitchell 



NOT VOTING- 

-21 

Baucus 

Gregg 

Krjeger 

Biden 

Heflin 

McCain 

Campbell 

Helms 

Murkowski 

Daschle 

Inouye 

.Vickies 

Durenberger 

Jeffords 

Rockefeller 

Exon 

Kassebaum 

Wallop 

Glenn 

Kerry 

Wofford 


APPOINTMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 
PRO TEMPORE 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Chair, on behalf of the President pro 
tempore, pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion HI (103d Congress, 1st session), an- 
nounces the appointment of the Sen- 
ator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] as a mem- 
ber of the Senate Ethics Study Com- 
mission, vice the Senator from Alaska 
[Mr. Stevens]. 

Mr. BOREN addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. 
MOSELEY-BRAUN). The Senator from 
Oklahoma. 

Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I sug- 
gest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 
call the roll. 

Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With ob- 
jection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from Oklahoma. 


So the amendment (No. 388) was re- 
jected. 

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I move to 
reconsider the vote. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I move to lay that 
motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING LIMIT 

AND ELECTION REFORM ACT OF 

1993 

The Senate continued with the con- 
sideration of the bill. 

Mr. BOREN. Madam President, dur- 
ing the debate yesterday or the day be- 
fore — there was so much going on I 
cannot recall which day it was— my 
good friend and colleague from Vir- 
ginia, Senator Warner, raised a ques- 
tion on the floor with a letter to me, 
requesting an analysis as to the man- 
ner in which those of us who have been 
suggesting that we end the lobbyist tax 
deduction as a means for paying for the 
benefits to bring about campaign 
spending limits, arrived at those esti- 
mates. 

I have the letter from Senator War- 
ner dated the 21st of May, in which he 
concludes that he feels if we could 
more carefully define this issue, it 
would be helpful to our debate on cam- 
paign finance reform. 

I have gone back to those who made 
that estimate in the Congressional 
Budget Office and have obtained infor- 
mation from them as to the means by 
which they did make that estimate. 

I will read just a portion of that let- 
ter which I sent to Senator Warner in 
reply to him: 

The House Ways and Means Committee has 
proposed raising roughly $8(X) million over 5 
years by adopting the Treasury Depart- 
ment's proposal to use existing definition of 
lobbying in the Internal Revenue Code. This 
definition is used for purposes of limitation 
on lobbying by section 501(c)(3) charities. 
The Senate campaign finance reform pro- 
posal raises an additional S4(X) million over 5 
years by using the definition of lobbying 
which is contained in the Levin-Cohen Lob- 
bying Disclosure Act. which the Senate re- 
cently approved overwhelmingly. 

I will skip over and read another 
part: 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12019 


According to the Congressional Budget Of- 
fice, the 5 year cost of campaign finance re- 
form for both House and Senate elections is 
approximately $360 million. Thus, both the 
Ways and Means Committee proposal. $800 
million over 5 years, and the Senate plan, 
$1.2 billion over 5 years, would raise enough 
to pay for campaign finance reform, with the 
Senate plan also contributing to significant 
deficit reduction. 

I understand that under current disclosure 
laws, about 6,000 lobbyists are registered. 
The Senate Governmental Affairs Commit- 
tee estimates that number will go up to be- 
tween 20,000 and 30.000 lobbyists under the 
Levin-Cohen bill. 

Madam. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that the full text of the letter 
from Senator Warner to me, my letter 
to him answering his questions and 
also a copy of the text of the House 
proposal and a copy of the Levin lobby- 
ing disclosure bill be printed in the 
Record so that the Record may be full 
and complete on this subject. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

U.S. Senate, 
Washington. DC. .May 2-7. 1993. 
U.S. Senator John WaTiner. 
Senate Russell Office Building. Washington, 
DC. 

Dear John: This letter is in response to 
your note dated May 21 requesting follow up 
information from my testimony before the 
Senate Committee on Rules and Administra- 
tion regarding the President's campaign fi- 
nance reform legislation. I agree with you 
that a clearer definition of this issue can 
only strengthen debate. 

The House Ways and Means Committee has 
proposed raising roughly $800 million over 5 
years by adopting the Treasury Depart- 
ment's proposal to use the existing defini- 
tion of lobbying in the^nternal Revenue 
Code. This definition is used for purposes of 
the limitation on lobbying' by 501(c)(3) char- 
ities. The Senate campaign finance reform 
proposal raises an additional $400 million 
over 5 years by using the definition of lobby- 
ing that is contained in the Levin-Cohen 
Lobbying Disclosure Act which the Senate 
recently approved overwhelmingly. 

The Senate's approach is much simpler for 
businesses because it will subject them to 
identical rules for both tax purposes and for 
purposes of reporting under the Levin-Cohen 
bill. In other words, business expenses which 
were formerly deducted but which fall under 
the definition of lobbying in the Levin bill 
would no longer be deductible. Under the 
House legislation, businesses will have to 
follow two different definitions of lobbying— 
one for tax purposes and one for reporting 
purposes. 

According to the Congressional Budget Of- 
fice, the 5 year cost of campaign finance re- 
form for both House and Senate elections is 
approximately $360 million. Thus, both the 
Ways and Means Committee proposal ($800 
millions years) and the Senate plan ($1.2 bil- 
lion/5 years) would raise enough to pay for 
campaign finance reform, with the Senate 
plan also contributing to significant deficit 
reduction. 

I understand that, under current disclosure 
laws, about 6.000 lobbyists are registered. 
Senate Government Affairs estimates that 
number will go up to 20.000 to 30.000 lobbyists 
under the Levin-Cohen bill. 

I hope this response adequately addresses 
your questions. For your information, I have 


attached both a copy of the House Ways and 
Means proposal and the Levin/Cohen bill's 
lobbying definition section. 
Sincerely, 

David L. Boren. 

U.S. Senate, 
Washington, DC, May 21. 1993. 
Hon. David L. Boren, 
U.S. Senate. Washington. DC. 

Dear David: I am writing as a follow up to 
the questions I asked of you when you testi- 
fied before the Senate Committee on Rules 
and Administration regarding President 
Clinton's campaign finance reform proposal. 

President Clinton's proposal contains a 
Sense of Congress clause relating to the 
planned funding mechanism for the legisla- 
tion. It states "It is the sense of the Con- 
gress that subsequent legislation effectuat- 
ing this Act shall not provide for general 
revenue increases, reduce expenditures for 
any existing Federal program, or increase 
the Federal budget deficit, but should be 
funded by disallowing the Federal income 
tax deduction for expenses paid or incurred 
for lobbying the Federal Government". 

There have been various figures given as 
the estimated amount of new revenue that 
would result from a change in the tax law re- 
garding lobbyists deductions. I am extremely 
interested in knowing how those figures were 
reached. Were they based on the number of 
lobbyists currently employed or on the ac- 
tual amount of deductions for lobbying ac- 
tivity taken on tax forms? It is my under- 
standing that there is no "lobbying deduc- 
tion" line on tax forms. How are lobbyists 
defined? Are only registered lobbyists cov- 
ered? 

If we can more carefully define this issue. 
I am confident it will be most helpful in our 
debate on campaign finance reform. I thank 
you in advance for your prompt consider- 
ation of this request. 
Sincerely, 

John W.\rner. 

Levin Bill 
(E) any employee of a joint committee of 
the Congress, other than a clerical or sec- 
retarial employee. 

(5) The term 'Director" means the Direc- 
tor of the Office of Lobbying Registration 
and Public Disclosure. 

(6) The term "employee" means any indi- 
vidual who is an officer, employee, partner, 
director, or proprietor of an organization, 
but does not include — 

(A) independent contractors or other 
agents who are not regular employees: or 

(B) volunteers who receive no financial or 
other compensation from the organization 
for their services. 

(7) The term "foreign entity" means— 

(A) a government of^ foreign country or a 
foreign political party (as such terms are de- 
fined in section 1 (e) and (f) of the Foreign 
Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended 
(22 U.S.C. 611 (e)and(f))): 

(B) a person outside the United States, 
other than a United States citizen or an or- 
ganization that is organized under the laws 
of the United States or any State and has its 
principal place of business in the United 
States; or 

(C) a jjartnership. association, corporation, 
organization, or other combination of per- 
sons that is organized under the laws of or 
has its principal place of business in a for- 
eign country. 

(8) The term "lobbying activities" means 
lobbying contacts and efforts in support of 
such contacts, including preparation and 


planning activities, research and other back- 
ground work that is intended for use in con- 
tacts, and coordination with the lobbying ac- 
tivities of others. Lobbying activities in- 
clude grass roots lobbying communications 
(as defined in regulations implementing sec- 
tion 4911(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986) to the extent that such activities are 
made in direct support of lobbying contacts. 

(9)(A) The term "lobbying contact" means 
any oral or written communication with a 
covered legislative or executive branch offi- 
cial made on behalf of a client with regard 
to— 

(i) the formulatio4, modification, or adop- 
tion of Federal legislation (Including legisla- 
tive proposals); 

(ii) the formulatiop. modification, or adop- 
tion of a Federal rule, regulation. Executive 
order, or any other program, policy or posi- 
tion of the United Spates Government; or 

(iii) the administijation or execution of a 
Federal program or jwlicy (including the ne- 
gotiation, award, or administration of a Fed- 
eral contract, grant, loan, permit, or license) 
except that it does not include communica- 
tions that are made to officials serving in 
the Senior Executive Service or the uni- 
formed services in the agency responsible for 
taking such action. 

(B) The term shall not include communica- 
tions that are— 

(i) made by public officials acting in their 
official capacity; 

(ii) made by representatives of a media or- 
ganization who are primarily engaged in 
gathering and disseminating news and infor- 
mation to the public; 

(iii) made in a speech, article or other pub- 
lication, or through the media: 

(iv) made on behalf of a foreign principal 
and disclosed under the Foreign Agents Reg- 
istration Act of 1938. as amended (22 U.S.C. 
611 et seq.); 

(V) requests for appointments, requests for 
the status of a Federal action, or other simi- 
lar ministerial contacts, if there is no at- 
tempt to influence covered legislative or ex- 
ecutive branch officials; 

(vi) made in the course of participation in 
an advisory committee subject to the Fed- 
eral Advisory Committee Act: 

(vii) testimony given before a committee, 
subcommittee, or office of Congress, or sub- 
mitted for inclusion in the public record of a 
hearing conducted by such committee, sub- 
committee, or office: 

(viii) information provided in writing in re- 
sponse to a specific written request from a 
Federal" agency or a congressional commit- 
tee, subcommittee, or office; 

(ix) required by subpoena, civil investiga- 
tive demand, or otherwise comi>elled by stat- 
ute, regulation, or other action of Congress 
or a Federal agency; 

(X) made in response to a notice in the Fed- 
eral Register. Commerce Business Daily, or 
other similar publication soliciting commu- 
nications from the public and directed to the 
agency official specifically designated in the 
notice to receive such communications: 

(xi) not possible to report without disclos- 
ing information, the unauthorized disclosure 
of which is prohibited by law; 

(xii) made to agency officials with regard 
to judicial proceedings, criminal or civil law 
enforcement inquiries, investigations or pro- 
ceedings, or filings required by statute or 
regulation; 

(xiii) made in compliance with written 
agency procedures regarding an adjudication 
conducted by the agency under section 554 of 
title 5. United States Code, or substantially 
similar provisions; 


12020 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


(xiv) written comments Tiled in a public 
docket and other communications that are 
made on the record in a public proceeding; 
and 

(XV) made on behalf of an individual with 
regard to such individual's benefits, employ- 
ment, other personal matters involving only 
that individual, or disclosures by that indi- 
vidual pursuant to applicable whistleblower 
statutes. 

(10) The term ■lobbyist" means any indi- 
vidual who is employed or retained by an- 
other for financial or other compensation to 
perform services that include lobbying con- 
tacts, other than an individual whose lobby- 
ing activities are only incidental to, and are 
not a significant part of, the services pro- 
vided by such individual to the client. 

(11) The term 'organization" means any 
corporation (excluding a Government coii- 
poration). company, foundation, association, 
labor organization, firm, partnership, soci- 
ety, joint stock company, or group of organi- 
zations. Such term shall not include any 
Federal. State, or local unit of government 
(other than a State college or university as 
described under section 511(a»<2)(B) oC the In- 
ternal Revenue Code of 1986). organization of 
State or local elected or appointed officials, 
any Indian tribe, any national or State polit- 
ical party and any organizational unit there- 
of, or any Federal. State, or local unit of any 
foreign government. 

(12) The term -public official" means any 
elected or appointed official who is a regular 
employee of a Federal, State, or local unit of 
government (other than a State college or 
university as described under section 
511(a)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
198ff), an organization of State or local elect- 
ed or appointed officials, an Indian tribe. 


House Propos.\l 

(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1145(e) 
are each amended by striking "34 percent" 
and inserting '36 percent '. 

(c) Effective D.^te,— The amendments 
made by this section shall apply to taxable 
years beginning on or after January 1, 1993: 
except that the amendment made by sub- 
section (c)(3) shall take effect on the date of 
the enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 2202. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR LOBBY- 
ING EXPENSES. 

(a) Dis.'\LLOW.\NCE OF DEDUCTION.— -Section 
162(e) (relating to appearances, etc.. with re- 
spect to legislation) is amended to read as 
follows; 

■•(e) De.vi.al OF Deduction for Certain 
Lobbying and Political Expenditures.— 

"(1) In general.— No deduction shall be al- 
lowed under subsection (a) for any amount 
paid or incurred— 

■■(A) in connection with influencing legis- 
lation, 

"(B) for participation in, or intervention 
in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in 
opposition to) any candidate for public of- 
fice, or 

"(C) in connection with any attempt to in- 
fluence the general public, or segments 
thereof, with respect to elections. 

■■(2) Application to dues.— 

■•(A) In general.— No deduction shall be 
allowed under subsection (a) for the portion 
of dues or other similar amounts (paid by the 
taxpayer with respect to an organization) 
which is allocable to the expenditures de- 
scribed in paragraph (1). 

■■(B) ALLOC.\TION.— 

•■(i> In general.— For purposes of subpara- 
graph (A), expenditures described in para- 
graph (1) shall be treated as paid out of dues 
or other similar amounts. 


■•(ii) Carryover of lobbying expendi- 
tures IN EXCESS OF DUES— For purposes of 
this paragraph, if expenditures described in 
paragraph (1) exceed the dues or other simi- 
lar amounts for any calendar year, such ex- 
cess shall be treated as expenditures de- 
scribed in paragraph (1) which are paid or in- 
curred by the organization during the follow- 
ing calendar year. 

••(3) Influencing legislation.— For pur- 
poses of this subsection— 

•■(A) In general.— The term •influencing 
legislation' means — 

•■(i) any attempt to influence the general 
public, or segments thereof, with respect to 
legislation, and 

■■(ii) any attempt to influence any legisla- 
tion through communication with any mem- 
ber or employee of the legislative body, or 
with any government official or employee 
who may participate in the formulation of 
the legislation. 

••(B) Exception for certain technical ad- 
vice.— The term influencing legislation' 
shall not include the providing of technical 
advice or assistance to a governmental body 
or to a committee or other subdivision there- 
of in response to a specific written request 
by such governmental entity to the taxpayer 
which specifies the nature of the ad.vice_ or 
assistance requested. 

- '(C) Legislation.— The term legislation' 
has the meaning given such term by section 
49l'l(e)(2). 

■■(4) Exception for certain taxpayers.— 
In the case of any taxpayer engaged in the 
trade or business of conducting activities de- 
scribed in paragraph (1). paragraph (1) shall 
not apply to expenditures of the taxpayer in 
conducting such activities on behalf of an- 
other person (but shall apply to payments by 
such other person to the taxpayer for con- 
ducting such activities). 

••(5) Cross reference — 

••For reporting requirements related to 
this subsection, see section 6050O." 

(b) Reporting Require.me.nts — 

(1) In general— Subpart B of part III of 
subchapter A of chapter 61 (relating to infor- 
mation concerning transactions with other 
persons) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new section; 

-SEC. 6050O, RETURNS RELATING TO LOBBYING 
EXPEN-DITURES OF CERTALN ORGA- 
NIZATIONS. 

••(a) Re(}uirement of Reporting— Each or- 
ganization referred to in section 162(e)(2) 
shall make a return, according to the forms 
or regulations prescribed by the Secretary, 
setting forth the names and addresses of per- 
sons paying dues to the organization, the 
amount of the dues paid by such person, and 
the portion of such dues which is nondeduct- 
ible under section 162(e)(2). 

••(b) St.^te.-vie.nts To be Furnished to Per- 
sons With Respectt to whom Information Is 
Furnished.— Any organization required to 
make a return under subsection (a) shall fur- 
nish to each person whose name is required 
to be set forth in such return a written state- 
ment showing — 

"(1) the name and address of the organiza- 
tion, and 

••(2) the dues paid by the person during the 
calendar year and the portion of such dues' 
which is nondeductible under section 
162(e)(2). 

The written statement required under the 
preceding sentence shall be furnished (either 
in person or in a statement mailing by first- 
class mail which includes adequate notice 
that the statement is enclosed) to the per- 
sons on or before January 31 of the year fol- 
lowing the calendar year for which the re- 


turn under subsection (a) was made and shall 
be in such form as the Secretary may pre- 
scribe by regulations. 

'•(c) Waiver. — The Secretary may waive 
the reporting requirerrrents of this section 
with respect to any organization or class of 
organizations if the Secretary determines 
that such reporting is not necessary to carry 
out the purposes of section 162(e). 

••(d) Dues,— For purposes of this section, 
the term dues' includes other similar 
amounts." 

(2) Penalties.— 

(A) Returns.— Subparagraph (A) of section 
6724(d)(1) (defining information return) is 
amended by striking "or" at the end of 
clause (x"i). by striking the period at the end 
of the clause (xii) relating to section 4101(d) 
and inserting a comma, by redesignating the 
clause (xii) relating to section 338(h)(10) as 
clause (xiii). by striking the period at the 
end of clause (xiii) (as so redesignated) and 
inserting ■•. or", and by adding at the end the 
following new clause; 

"(xiv) section 60500(a) (xelating to infor- 
mation on nondeductible lobbying expendi- 
tures)." 

(B) Payee statements.— Paragraph (2) of 
section 6724(d) (defining payee statement) is 
amended by striking "or" at the end of sub- 
paragraph (R). by striking the period at the 
end of subparagraph (S) aind inserting •. or ". 
and by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph; 

."(T) section 60500(b) (relating to returns 
on nondeductible lobbying expenditures)." 

(C) Excessive underreporting —Section 
6721 (relating to failure to file correct infor- 
mation returns) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new subsection; 

■■(f) Penalty- in Case of Excessive Under- 
reporting ON Nondeductible Dues.— If the 
aggregate amount of nondeductible dues 
which is reported on the return required to 
be filed under section 60500(a) for any cal- 
endar year is less than 75 percent of the ag- 
gregate amount required to be so reported — 

■■(1) subsections (b). (c). and (d) shall not 
apply, and 

••(2) the penalty imposed under subsection 
(a) shall be equal to the product of— 

■■(A) the amount required to be reported 
which was not so reported, and 

■■(B) the highest rate of tax imposed by 
section 11 for taxable years beginning In 
such calendar year." 

(3) Conforming amendment —The table of 
sections for subpart B of part III of sub- 
chapter A of chapter 61 is amended by adding 
at the end the following new item; 

■Sec. 6050O. Returns relating to lobbying ex- 
penditures of certain organiza- 
tions. '" 
(c) Effective Date.— The amendments 
made by this section shall apply to amounts 
paid or incurred after December 31. 1993. 
SEC. 2203. MARK TO MARKET ACCOUNTING 
METHOD FOR SECURITIES DEALERS. 

(a) General Rule.— Subpart D of part II of 
subchapter E of chapter 1 (relating to inven- 
tories) is amended by adding at the end 
thereof the following new section; 

"SEC. 475. MARK TO MARKET ACCOUNTING 
METHOD FOR DEALERS IN SECURI- 
TIES. 

••(a) General Rule.— Notwithstanding any 
other provision of this subpart, the following 
rules shall apply to securities held by a deal- 
er in securities; 

••(1) Any security which is inventory in the 
hands of the dealer shall be included in in- 
ventory at its fair market value. 

'•(2) In the case of any security which is 
not inventory in the hands of the dealer and 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12021 


which is held at the close of any taxable 
year- 

■•(A) the dealer shall recognize gain or loss 
as if such security were sold for its fair mar- 
ket * * *. 

Mr. BOREN. I yield the floor. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President. I 
strongly support the leadership pro- 
posal for campaign finance reform. 
Passage of this legislation is essential 
to achieving the far-reaching changes 
that are urgently needed in our current 
system of campaign financing. 

This legislation is the- culmination of 
years of hard work and it deserves wide 
support. Every effort has been made to 
address concerns raised by Members on 
both sides of the aisle. No Senator will 
agree with every provision in this bill. 
All Senators may have additions or 
changes that they believe will make 
this a better piece of legislation. But 
all of us know that it is time to move 
forward and reform the campaign fi- 
nancing system. 

The American people have waited 
long enough for Congress to act on this 
issue. They are fed up with the 
gridlock that has blocked every cam- 
paign finance reform bill in recent 
years. They are fed up with the present 
system and its excessive, reliance on 
unlimited contributions that make 
conflict of interest a way of life in Con- 
gress. They are fed up with campaigns 
driven by the high cost of television 
commercials. They are fed up with 
Members of Congress who spend time 
raising money from special interests, 
instead of tending to the public inter- 
est. 

In all of these ways, the constant 
hunt for campaign dollars demeans our 
elections, distorts our legislation, and 
diminishes our democracy. As Mark 
Twain said, in words that are still 
true— perhaps even truer today — "We 
have the finest Congress money can 
buy — and it is a national disgrace." 

The American people elected a Presi- 
dent last November who understands 
the need for reform and is committed 
to achieving it. Unlike his prede- 
cessors. President Clinton supports far- 
reaching reforrn, and he continues to 
push hard for the most extensive pos- 
sible changes in the campaign finance 
laws. 

For the first time in 12 years, we 
know that if we can get this bill to the 
White House, it will be signed into law. 
It is up to Congress to act, and act 
now. It is time to end the hypocrisy. It 
is time for Members who pay lip serv- 
ice to reform, to put their votes where 
their rhetoric is, and end this pious 
pretense that if they don't get their 
way, no bill should pass. This bill is far 
better than no bill, and all of us know 
it. 

There are three key elements of this 
bill: Spending limits, a ban on PAC 
contributions, and limited public fi- 
nancing for Senate and House elec- 
tions. Each element of this reform pro- 
gram deserves support. 


Spending limits are the cornerstone 
of any attempt to achieve meaningful 
carffpaign finance reform. The amount 
of money spent on congressional cam- 
paigns is now six times greater than in 
1976; S678 million was spent on congres- 
sional campaigns in 1992. Only spending 
limits can stop the arms race in cam- 
paign spending. 

Spending limits will also free Sen- 
ators from the corrosive and corrupt- 
ing influence of the current system. 
The people want, and deserve, respon- 
sible action by Congress on the many 
pressing challenges facing the Nation. 
They do not want us endlessly and 
shamelessly soliciting large campaign 
contributions from those whose inter- 
ests are affected by the votes we cast. 
Spending limits can end the corruption 
and the appearance of corruption' that 
shadow everything we do and every 
vote we cast. 

Any campaign finance reform worth 
its salt must include spending limits. 
Without spending limits, we will sim- 
ply be inviting a continuation of the. 
corruption and abuses ingrained in the 
present system. Without spending lim- 
its, election reform is a sham, and elec- 
tions will still be for sale to the high- 
est bidder. 

But if we are serious about ending 
the arms race in campaign financing, 
spending limits alone are not enough. 
We also need to end the influence of 
special interests on the electoral proc- 
ess. This bill will eliminate the mas- 
sive, flow of PAC contributions that 
have come to dominate Senate election 
campaigns in recent years. PAC con- 
tributions have soared from $12.5 mil- 
lion in 1974 to $180 million in 1992. 
These contributions usually come in 
$5,000 amounts, and they are a primary 
factor in the uncontrolled cost of cam- 
paign spending. 

The elimination of PAC contribu- 
tions is a major step toward restoring 
public confidence in political cam- 
paigns. A complete ban on PAC con- 
tributions will reassure the people that 
we are serious about reform. And it 
will help level the playing field for 
challengers, who receive only a small 
share of the total PAC contributions 
made in each election campaign. 

This bill makes spending limits and 
the PAC ban more attractive to incum- 
bents and challengers alike by offering 
low-cost mail rates, reduced television 
advertising rates, broadcast vouchers, 
and other incentives. 

Public financing of elections makes 
sense. These tax dollars are untainted 
by conflicts of interest. They come 
with no strings tied to private contrib- 
utors seeking favors from Government. 
It may be the wisest investment of tax 
dollars that any of us will ever make. 

My support for public financing of 
Senate and House elections is long- 
standing. I was a strong supporter of 
Senator Russell Long's pioneering leg- 
islation in 1966, which adopted the dol- 


lar checkoff for Presidential elections. 
The Senate version of the Watergate 
Reform Act in 1974 included a biparti- 
san provision, that I had sponsored in 
1973 with the Republican minority 
leader. Senator Hugh Scott of Penn- 
sylvania, to apply public financing to 
Senate and House elections as well. 

Unfortunately, the House-Senate 
conference bill that year limited public 
financing to Presidential elections and 
rejected the idea for congressional 
elections. But the principle of public fi- 
nancing has worked well for Presi- 
dential elections for the past two dec- 
ades, and it will work well for Senate 
and House elections if we give it a 
chance. 

In fact. Members of Congress, from 
both parties, who have run for Presi- 
dent have taken advantage of public 
funds during their own Presidential 
campaigns. If public financing is good 
enough for the Presidential elections, 
if it is good enough for Members of 
Congress who run for President, it is 
good enough for Senate and House elec- 
tions, too. 

So I welcome the public financing 
provisions in this legislation, and I 
wish they went further. But the meas- 
ure before us is still an excellent re- 
form. It offers us a realistic way to 
break the dependency of Congress on 
fat cats and special interest groups for 
campaign dollars. In fact, this measure 
will enable us to spend far less time 
raising money and far more time on 
concerns that matter to the people. It 
will ensure that elections are about is- 
sues and priorities, and not about col- 
lecting campaign cash. 

All 100 Senators recognize that the 
current campaign finance law is deeply 
flawed. No one wants to spend vast 
amounts of time on the money chase, 
raising millions of dollars to get re- 
elected in ways that .inevitably raise 
suspicions that elections are for sale. It 
is time to change the system, step off 
the fundraising treadmill, and elimi- 
nate special Interest influence. 

It is absurd to call these reforms an 
incumbent protection bill. In all likeli- 
hood, challengers will benefit more 
than incumbents from this new system 
of campaign funding. It offers a more 
level playing field for all participants 
in Senate and House elections. 

This bill is not a perfect bill. All Sen- 
ators can find some faults with its pro- 
visions or its omissions. But this re- 
form is a realistic far-reaching attempt 
to improve the campaign finance sys- 
tem, and it deserves broad support 
from Democrats and Republicans. It is 
the best hope we have to restore public 
confidence in the political process. 

It is time to take our elections off 
the auction block. It is time to take 
our campaigns away from the special 
interests and give them back to the 
people. It is time to reaffirm our com- 
mitment to democracy. 

So let us debate the merits of this 
bill. But at the end of that debate, let 


12022 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


us put this legislation to a vote, not 
kill it with a filibuster. 

The American people deserve more 
than another round of inaction and 
gridlock. They deserve a Congress with 
the courage to change. 

Finally, I want to commend three 
Senators who have done such an out- 
standing job in preparing this legisla- 
tion and bringing it before the Senate. 
Majority leader Mitchell, and Sen- 
ators BOREN and Ford, deserve great 
credit for their achievement. This bill 
deserves to pass, and I hope that it 
will. The Nation needs it, and it will 
pay long-lasting dividends for the 
American people in the form of a Con- 
gress more responsive to their needs. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ma- 
jority leader. 

ORDER OF PROCEDURE 

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, 
with the managers and the distin- 
guished Republican leader on the floor, 
I would like, if I might, suggest a 
course of action with respect to today 
and further handling of this measure 
when the Serate returns from the Me- 
morial Day recess. 

I previously indicated my desire— my 
hope really — that we could dispose of 
the DeConcini amendment and two 
amendments to be offered by the dis- 
tinguished Senator from Florida [Mr. 
Graham]. 

In an effort to accommodate the 
travel schedules of a number of Sen- 
ators, I now suggest the following and 
see whether or not it would be agree- 
able to the Republican leader, the Sen- 
ator from Florida and the managers. 

I suggest that we discontinue action 
on the measure as of now; that when 
the Senate returns to session on Mon- 
day, June 7, that we consider the Gra- 
ham measures on that afternoon, and 
vote on them not prior to 6 p.m. on 
that day to give returning Senators a 
chance to get back. If there is a possi- 
bility of doing any other amendments 
on that day, if other Senators are 
going to be present to do that as well, 
but at least the two Graham amend- 
ments, and then be back, after we have 
everybody back here, working on the 
bill as of that Monday. 

That will permit Senators who have 
a travel schedule to leave this after- 
noon, and it would mean there would 
be no votes prior to 6 p.m. on Monday, 
June 7. 

I would like to inquire of the Repub- 
lican leader, the Senator from Florida, 
and of the two managers whether that 
would be agreeable to them. 

Mr. DOLE. I am informed by the 
manager on this side that that would 
be satisfactory. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I ask the Senator 
from Florida. 

Mr. GRAHAM. That schedule would 
be very satisfactory. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. SPECTER. If the majority leader 
will yield, I wonder if the distinguished 


majority leader could make that vote 
no earlier than 7 p.m. This Senator al- 
ready has plans. That is the first day 
after the recess. I can modify my plans 
to be here by 7 p.m., if that is accept- 
able. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I 
will be pleased to try to accommodate 
the Senator. When we confront this 
problem, as always, we have some Sen- 
ators who want to leave on Monday by 
a certain time, and some Senators who 
will not be arriving until a certain 
time. I have previously attempted very 
hard to accommodate every Senator. 

I will say now that I believe it is not 
going to be possible to continue the 
current schedule into the future, and I 
will in the near future, later today, an- 
nounce a different schedule for the 
Senate in the future. I have not made 
any announcement with respect to 
Monday. June 7. I guess before I make 
a decision, I should hear from other 
Senators. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the majority 
leader will yield for a question. Frank- 
ly, I am one of those who prefer to fin- 
ish up whatever we can today. I think 
the majority leader was very clear in 
his announcements that there could 
very well be votes on this day. And 
those who chose to ignore that, I think, 
are the ones who ran the risk, as op- 
posed to suddenly now looking at what 
is perhaps a little presumptive but nev- 
ertheless a schedule that most believe 
in; and that is a Monday after an ex- 
tended stay like that is a day one uses 
to travel back and, as a consequence, 
are not prepared, because of extensive 
other plans, to be back here on that 
Monday. 

I planned to be here before midnight 
on Monday so we can conduct our busi- 
ness, as usual, on Tuesday. Again, I do 
not want to impose excessive burdens 
on my colleagues and friends here, but 
I think the majority leader was very 
specific about what the risk might be 
with votes today. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, 
this obviously makes the point that it 
is impossible to satisfy anybody around 
here, so I will make the following sug- 
gestion and then I am going to make a 
statement. 

I now suggest that we debate these 
on Monday and we vote on them at 9 
o'clock on Tuesday morning. Is that 
agreeable to everybody present? 

Madam President, I then ask unani- 
mous consent that when the Senate re- 
turns to session on Monday, June 7, 
that the Senator from Florida [Mr. 
Graham] be recognized to offer two 
amendments which will be debated 
that day, and the votes on or in rela- 
tion to them, occur at 9 a.m. on Tues- 
day morning. 

I would like, if I might, to i)erhaps 
modify that and ask the Senator. from 
Florida, would the Senator from Flor- 
ida prefer to offer the amendments 
today, have debate today, and then 


vote on Tuesday, or would he prefer to 
do it on Monday, June 7? He has been 
so cooperative. 

Mr. GRAHAM. My preference would 
be to offer them on Monday, June 7. I 
would like, if possible, to reserve 
maybe 10 or 15 minutes, before the vote 
at 9 a.m., on Tuesday for final discus- 
sion of the amendments prior to the 
vote. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, 
what we will do then is to have the de- 
bate Monday afternoon, and then have 
the debate from 9 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., and 
have the votes at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday. 
I so modify my request. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 
objection? Without objection, it is so 
ordered. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to say 
something, and this serves as the ap- 
propriate time to do it. I will be con- 
sulting with the distinguished Repub- 
lican leader, as is always my practice. 

As I stated on several occasions, it 
has gotten to the point where Senators 
simply leave, make presumptions, 
make assumptions and, therefore, I do 
not believe it possible to continue the 
schedule as we have had it. 

It is my intention to change the 
schedule so that, henceforth, votes will 
be possible at any time the Senate is in 
session. There are no assumptions, no 
presumptions. Nobody can assume any- 
thing with respect to when votes may 
occur. And votes, including procedural 
votes, may occur at any time. So when- 
ever the Senate is in session, unless 
there is going to be a specific an- 
nouncement or agreement to the con- 
trary. Senators should be prepared to 
be present within 20 minutes for a vote. 

So those Senators who do not want 
to vote at this hour, do not want to 
vote at that hour, do not want to vote 
on this day, or do not want to vote on 
that day, just everybody should under- 
stand, whenever the Senate is in ses- 
sion, they have to be prepared to vote. 

There is no more 3 o'clock limitation 
on Friday. There is no more 7 o'clock 
limitation on Tuesdays and Wednes- 
days. There are no more Monday limi- 
tations. Unless I specifically make an 
announcement to the contrary. Sen- 
ators should assume that the Senate 
will be in session and that votes can 
occur on any subject, including proce- 
dural votes, at any time the Senate is 
in session. 

Having said that. Madam President, 
there will be no further rollcall votes 
today, and there will be no rollcall 
votes prior to 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, 
June 8. 

Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator from Arkansas. 

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I 
would like to offer my strong support 
to the position just taken by our ma- 
jority leader. I think what is happening 
these days is that we find ourselves 
going back into some of our old prac- 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12023 


tices. The majority leader and the mi- 
nority leader have allowed us to experi- 
ment for the last 2 or 3 years with a 
program of business whereby we gen- 
erally work 3 weeks here and then are 
afforded the opportunity of having a 
week with our constituency back in 
our home States. 

From time to time, when we come 
back and resume business on a Mon- 
day, as we have seen here, some of our 
co*leagues ask for a period where they 
are protected. And so what we are 
doing is extending now the 7-day recess 
to an 8-day recess. 

And then our colleagues. Madam 
President, before we go back home on 
these visits with our constituencies, 
for our town meetings and in an at- 
tempt to stay in touch, the day before 
we break, then our colleagues often- 
times come to the leadership and say 
that they have a lot of things sched- 
uled. They would like to get out a day 
early. So our colleagues keep wanting 
to add a day or two or what-have-you 
to this time back home in our States. 

I think we ought to be very specific, 
and I think we ought to support our 
leadership in the Senate. I think all of 
us should know we are on notice — when 
the schedule is printed and given to all 
of us at the beginning of the year on a 
Senate calendar, that we should be on 
notice at that time that the schedule is 
set. 

I strongly support what the leader 
has just stated, and I hope our col- 
leagues will be tolerant with our lead- 
ership and allow them to set these 
dates and for us not to inch up and inch 
away and through erosion take away 
from the spirit and the intent of what 
the custom and the rules of the Senate 
are. 

Madam President, I yield the floor. 

Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I 
appreciate what the distinguished Sen- 
ator from Arkansas has said and what 
the distinguished majority leader said. 

Speaking for myself, I find it entirely 
acceptable. I am prepared to debate on 
this floor, available to vote any time. I 
think once in the course of the past 5 
years I have asked for an exception 
from the majority leader under very 
unusual circumstances. I had commit- 
ments last night in Philadelphia. I 
took a late train and missed a couple of 
votes. I heard that we were likely to 
vote this morning and came back with 
the expectation of working into the 
afternoon and voting some three times. 

In making plans on June 7, the first 
day back after the recess, it has been 
my experience, after 12'/2 years, that we 
very, very infrequently vote, if at all. I 
think it is a safe proposition to plan to 
return on the Monday after a recess by 
late afternoon or early evening— in the 
7 o'clock range. 

But I am prepared to make my sched- 
ule to be here Monday through Friday 


or Monday through Saturday or Mon- 
day through Sunday, as long as we 
know what is happening. 

I came to the floor last night at 
about a quarter of 8. One Senator was 
on the floor speaking about another 
subject. One of the managers was not 
on the floor and one of the managers 
was on the floor talking to someone 
else and looked at this Senator as if we 
were not in a position to do much busi- 
ness on campaign finance reform. I had 
pressing business in Philadelphia, and I 
caught a late train and returned early 
this morning. I am a little surprised to 
find only one vote. But I can accommo- 
date to that. I think all Senators can 
as long as we know, and I repeat 
"know." what the schedule is. We are 
all prepared to abide by whatever 
schedule the distinguished majority 
leader sets. 

I thank the Chair and yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator from Florida. 

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, if 
there is no other business, I would ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate re- 
vert to morning business and that I be 
allowed to speak therein. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 
objection? T,Kere being no objection, it 
is so ordered. 

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. 


PASSING OF DEMOCRACY IN HAITI 

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I 
wanted to make these remarks this 
morning because, by the time we re- 
turn, we will have celebrated the 20th 
month after the successful military 
coup in Haiti dislodged its first demo- 
cratically elected President in modern 
history. It will be a sad celebration of 
that 20th month passing of democracy 
in Haiti, and it should be another call 
to arms for the democratic nations of 
the world, with the United States in 
the leadership, to restore that democ- 
racy. 

Unfortunately, Madam President, 
today we are no closer to the restora- 
tion of democracy in Haiti than we 
were on that day in September 1991 
when President Aristide was hustled 
off by a military cabal to the Port-au- 
Prince Airport at gunpoint. From that 
point to today, he has been a leader in 
exile. 

We have attempted now for over 19 
months to negotiate his return and the 
restoration of democracy and the re- 
building of that nation. We have very 
little to show for those efforts. We con- 
tinue to see human rights violations. 
We continue to see drug trafficking at 
increasing levels. We continue to see a 
veritable free-fall of already the poor- 
est economy in the Western Hemi- 
sphere. 

We see over 1.000 boats poised, ready 
for a mass exodus from Haiti, re- 
strained only by the hope of President 
Aristide's return and a massive United 
States Coast Guard interdiction effort. 


Madam President, the military- 
backed regime in Port-au-Prince has 
no incentive to negotiate. The latest 
negotiation breakdown is just the lat- 
est example in a whole series. I would 
say a choreographed minuet in which 
the military presents a sufficient de- 
gree of interest in negotiation to keep 
them limping along but at the last mo- 
ment, when an actual agreement is to 
be reached, they retreat. There is very 
little incentive by those who currently 
control Haiti to negotiate themselves 
into exile, into poverty, into prison, 
and thus soon to celebrate the 20th 
month which see that negotiations 
have been unrewarding. 

The de facto government privately 
asked for an outside police security 
force with the expectation that outside 
international security force would 
serve to stabilize the country during 
the period of transition back to democ- 
racy. After having given the impres- 
sion to the world that that was an ac- 
ceptable process, then last weekend it 
was rejected. 

The military needs to know that by 
refusing to seriously negotiate there 
will be serious consequences. 

What are some of the things that the 
United States and our democratic al- 
lies should do? 

First, we must target the coup lead- 
ers, the coup leaders in the military 
and among the economic elites of 
Haiti, seizing their assets in the United 
States and other democratic nations, 
restricting visas. We need to make life 
as miserable for them as they have 
made it for the vast majority of the 
citizens of Haiti. 

We must convince our allies to em- 
bargo all but humanitarian aid and 
particularly to embargo petroleum, the 
product that has the greatest capabil- 
ity of bringing down the current re- 
gime. If we successfully cut petroleum, 
we have some chance through this eco- 
nomic restriction of accomplishing our 
objective of restoration of democracy. 
We must, in my opinion. Madam Presi- 
dent, set a date for President Aristide's 
return. 

I had suggested on this floor several 
weeks ago that we set the date of May 
31. That was not a casually arrived at 
date. It was a date which still would 
have allowed for 60 days of negotiation 
if there was a serious attempt to reach 
an agreement. It was a date which hap- 
pens to be 1 month before the onset of 
the hurricane season. It is my concern, 
feeling, that one of the factors which is 
likely to affect the potential of an exo- 
dus from Haiti is the sense the people 
are having today that their chance of 
escape, their chance to leave the cage 
of political and economic oppression 
which Haiti has become is soon going 
to be lost to them with the onset of the 
hurricane season, and that we now are 
in the most vulnerable period, a period 
of greatest instability, and that we 
should have set and should have ac- 


■ X 


12024 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


'May 28, 1993 


complished the objective of a return to 
President Aristide by May 31. 

That date was not set. Clearly that 
date will not be achieved. I think it is 
important that we set another reason- 
able date, the 30th of June, for the re- 
turn of President Aristide. 

There must be some motivating force 
to get the current stalemate moving 
toward a resolution. We must be pre- 
pared. Madam President, in my opin- 
ion, to use the threat and the reality of 
military force in order to achieve our 
goals. I do not advocate that this be 
done unilaterally by the United States- 
It should be done in conjunction with 
our democratic allies who. I might sug- 
gest, have been, unlike our European 
'allies; much more forthcoming in their 
indication and willingness to partici- 
pate ip this hemispheric assault on 
human rights. 

We must klso do it in conjunction 
with the United Nations, in terms of 
having a clearly tenable/identifiable 
peacekeeping capability ready to move 
in as soon as the situation has been 
stabilized and there is a functioning 
government in place in Port-au-Prince. 
The U.N. peacekeeping forces would be 
.available to assure that a lever of secu- 
rity and stability was available for 
those institutions to deepen. Diplo- 
macy without this credible use of force 
has proven to be next to useless in 
Haiti, as apparently, it is in Bosnia. 

We are seeing some other 'examples of 
this 20-month assault'on deniocracy in 
our hemisphere. Just this week, in 
Guatemala, on the heels of the attempt 
in Venezuela, we have' seen a democ- 
racy which is not under threat of a 
military takeover. The Guatemala 
rtiilitary saw what happened in Haiti. 
They saw it as a signal that all of the 
statements of the Organization of 
American States as to the protection 
of democracies in the hemisphere 
would not be sustained by serious ac- 
tion and initiative. They saw that as a 
signal that the old days were accept- 
able again, and they have moved. 

I believe it is important to the long- 
term future of democracy in this hemi- 
sphere that the United States now — 
and aggressively — use all the means at 
our command within the international 
community to achieve the goal of res- 
toration of democracy in Haiti, the re- 
establishment of President Aristide, 
and the beginning of a rebuilding of 
democratic and economic institutions. 

The lesson of Haiti also teaches us, I 
believe, some longer-range lessons. One 
of those is the need to establish on a 
permanent and sustained basis a re- 
gional peacekeeping force to protect 
democratic governments in this hemi- 
sphere. 

The failure to have such a sustained 
regional peacekeeping force in any 
place around the world has resulted in 
the United States being called upon to 
provide the core of response to vir- 
tually all of the world's problems. It is 


very much in our interest that we have 
an alternative in Europe, in Africa, in 
Asia, and elsewhere, of regional democ- 
racies which will take the front line of 
responsibility for the protection of de- 
mocracy within those continents. 

I believe; therefore, that it is our spe- 
cial responsibilitjy to provide leader- 
ship to create that sustained regional 
capacity within the Western Hemi- 
sphere, the part of the world for which 
we have a special role and responsibil- 
ity. We cannot be the hemisphere's po- 
liceman, but we can be the organizer of 
an effective peacekeeping force within 
this region in order to safeguard de- 
mocracy. 

Madam President, it is a sad addi- 
tional chapter in the long history of 
Haiti that the world has stepped aside 
and allowed, for 20 months, the brutal 
oppression to occur to a people who 
had. just a few weeks earlier, cele- 
brated the euphoria of the first elected 
democratic President in its modern 
history. 

I hope that we will not allow this pe- 
riod to continue; that we will not allow 
ourselves to continue to be deceived by 
the rulers of Haiti through their false 
calls for a negotiated settlement. We 
need, as we approach the 20-month an- 
niversary of this coup, to be prepared 
to take stronger action in order to 
achieve an extremely important objec- 
tive for democracy in the Western 
Hemisphere and in the world. 

Thank you. Madam President. 

I ask unanimoujy consent that an edi- 
torial which appeared in the Washing- 
ton Post of May 26. entitled "Tighten- 
ing the Screw on Haiti." appear in the 
Record. - ' 

There being no objection, the article 
was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

[From the Washington Post. May 26. 1993] 
TIGHTE.M.NG THE SCREW ON H.AITI 

An international police force was to be the 
dual-purpose lever by which the Organiza- 
tion of American States and the United Na- 
tions would pry the military out of power in 
Haiti and put the exiled elected government 
back in. A lightly armed force of 500-to 1.000 
members, along with the 130 human rights 
observers already in place, was intended to 
reassure soldiers that they would not be pun- 
ished for offenses against the people and to 
reassure a returning President Jean- 
Bertrand Aristide that he and his followers 
would not be pursued by the army. In the 
ever-calmer space that might thereby be 
gained, further steps toward a political tran- 
sition were envisaged. President Aristide was 
sour on the idea, and now the military com- 
mand has flatly turned it down. 

Twenty months after the coup that ousted 
the populist priest, the military and its part- 
ners in the civilian elite apparently have 
concluded they can disregard their inter- 
national critics even as they kill, jail and 
exile their domestic ones. They expect to 
ride out the incomplete economic and diplo- 
matic isolation the hemisphere has visited 
on them. Neither the United States nor the 
other concerned countries and international 
organizations have succeeded in negotiating 
the return of the elected government. Presi- 


dent Clinton's policies turn out to be no 
more effective in this task than those of his 
predecessor. . .' 

An -international police force remains a 
good idea, but something more severe is 
needed to make it a reality. General sanc- 
tions turn out to punish most the large and 
desperate Haitian underclass, which may yet 
be asked to carry even more of tihe burden if 
the country's oil imports are targeted; in 
any event, emergency food and relief, of 
which the United States is th^ chief pro- 
vider, must be increased. The next appro- 
priate turn of the screw is special sanctions 
aimed at the assets, including bank ac- 
counts, and visa privileges of the few who are 
making the many of Haiti miserable. One 
wonders why these things were not done be- 
fore in order to make a path to democracy in 
a country that has seen sadly little of it. 

For the OAS. Haiti has come to be a test 
case of its pledge to make the the preserva- 
tion of dernocracy in its member states its 
prime explicit mission. The failure of the 
OAS so far in Haiti has generated a profound 
crisis in the hemispheric organization. It is a 
crisis freshly aggravated by events in Guate- 
mala, where a civilian president, under mili- 
tary pressure, yesterday suspended the con- 
stitution and dissolved the congress. The 
OAS foreign ministers are to meet June 6 in 
Managua in A<rhat is shaping up as pivotal 
moment for democracy in the post-Cold War 
Americas. 


MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President. I 
now ask unanimous consent that there 
be a period for morning business, with 
Senators permitted to speak therein 
for up Co 10 minutes each. 

The .PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator from Pennsylvania. 


THE PRESIDENT'S 
RECONCILIATION PROPOSAL 

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. 

Madam President, this morning at 
11:37, we are within a very brief period 
of time since passage by the House of 
Representatives, by a very narrow 
vote, of the President's reconciliation 
proposal, which encompasses some very 
major changes in the projected eco- 
nomic future of this country. 

It had been my hope at this time to 
have been in Philadelphia, to have been 
with President Clinton and other Mem- 
bers of the Pennsylvania delegation, 
and perhaps the New Jersey and Dela- 
ware delegations, scheduled to meet 
with President Clinton at 11:30 this 
morning in anticipation of a program 
in the Philadelphia City Hall court- 
yard, where the President is going to 
address the Nation and the world at 12 
o'clock. 

It is with regret that I could not be 
there. But I thought it more important 
to be on the floor to participate in the 
debate on the campaign finance re- 
form. 

I do not want to take a moment or 
two now to make some comments 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12025 


about the action of the House of Rep- 
resentatives last night, and the future 
of that important legislation as it will 
be coming to the Senate when we re- 
turn after the Memorial Day recess. 

The feelings and concerns of the 
American people is always critical. The 
Members of both the House and the 
Senate will be talking to our constitu-* 
ents in substantial measure' during the 
intervening recess. 

My sense at the moment. Madam 
President — both in terms of what I 
have heard in my travels to my State 
and in other parts of this country, and 
from the very large volume of mail 
coming into my office— is that the peo- 
ple of Pennsylvania and the people of 
America are opposed to what the Presi- 
dent has suggested and what the House 
has passed. 

I believe the cornerstone of the prob- 
lem is the failure of President Clin- 
ton's budget to have sufficient cuts in 
Federal spending. You hear a great 
many figures as to what the proportion 
of cuts is to tax increases. Some range 
as high as 5 to 1. The Congressional 
Budget Office suggests that it is about 
$2.74 of new taxes to $1.72 in cuts. 

But I believe that it is plain that 
there are insufficient cuts in what 
President Clinton has proposed to be 
real and satisfactory to the American 
people. I urge the President and his as- 
sistants to take a hard look at that 
factor before the issue comes to th^ 
Senate and before many of us are asked 
to support that budget. There simply 
are not enough cuts.' 

Speaking for myself— and I know for 
many, many others on. the other side" of 
the aisle among the Democrats; as well 
as, I think, unifornri Republican re- 
sponse — there are insufficient .cuts in 
President Clinton's package to pass 
this body. 

The second factor of overwhelming 


$32,000 a year, or a single individual 
earning $25,000 a year. 

I make this statement. Madam Presi- 
dent, the morning after, when there is 
considerable jubilation at the Wliite 
House. And I accord the President his 
day of jubilation, but we are going to 
be looking at some very, very tough is- 
sues when we come back after the Me- 
morial Day recess. 

I have said publicly and privately and 
on the floor of the Senate that I want 
to support the President where I can. 
He is the new President, and we want 
to give him a chance. But that is not a 
blank check. One of the every' fun- 
damental principles of our constitu- 
tional Government is separation of 
powers; that is. Senators are independ- 
ently elected, and we are supposed to 
exercise our best judgment. 

The second fundamental principle is 
checks and balances on what it is the 
Executive wants to do. I have read very 
closely the morning news reports and 
have seen the television stories, and 
there is no doubt that there is tremen- 
dous disquiet in the House of Rep- 
resentatives among many of those who 
. voted in favor of the President's bill. 
\yhich passed by a scant six vote mar- 
gin. 

"It simply is not going to pass in this 
body in its current form, in this Sen- 
ator's opinion. I make this statement 
■now before we begin the Memorial Day 
recess because there is not going to be 
a whole lot of time when we get back. 
The Finance Committee will take up 
the issue, and there may well be a 
deadlock in the Finance Committee, 
and other Senators have spoken out. 

I made an extensive floor statement 
on Monday of this week complimenting 
those who have advanced new ideas. 
When you lift your head above the 
trenches in this body and in this town, 
watch out. You have to be as quick to 


and a proposed bill for an extension of 
time on certain compliance require- 
ments in western Pennsylvania. It is 
not quite finished. In the event I do not 
have it ready for presentation, I ask 
unanimous consent that I may insert it 
into the Record at a later point today. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 
roll. 

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, might I 
inquire if the Senate is currently con- 
ducting morning business? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ate is in morning business. 

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Madam Presi- 
dent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator from Virginia is recognized. 

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair. 

(The remarks of Mr. ROBB and Mr. 
BOREN pertaining to the introduction 
of S. 1068, are located in today's 
RECORD under "Statements on Intro- 
duced Bills and Joint Resolutions.") 

Mr. COATS addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator from Indiana. 

Mr. COATS. Madam President, are 
we in morning business? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are. 

Mr. COATS. I ask unanimous consent 
to proceed for 5 minutes in morning 
business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without, 
objection, it is so ordered. 


importance is the high incidence of - avoid being shot. I think that is the 


taxation. President Clinton's bill' has 
been labeled as the heaviest tax in- 
crease in the history of this^ country. 
Considering the tax Increases in the 
history of this country, that is a sig- 
nificant statement. , I believe those 
taxes have to be' reanalyzed, reevalu- 
ated, and reduced. 

The energy tax, simply stated, is un- 
acceptable. It is unacceptable to have 
an energy tax which is regressive and 
that hits the poor people of America. 
There is an income tax credit which is 
supposed to offset that energy tax, but 
I have read the fine print, and I think 
it is unrealistic to- expect that to hap- 
pen. 

The increased taxes on Social Secu- 
rity recipients are too high. There is a 
change in the taxable income on Social 
Security recipients going down to 
$32,000 for a married couple and $25,000 
for an individual. Whatever one may 
say about the willingness to tax the 
wealthy, someone is not wealthy if 
they are a married couple and earn 


right apFtroach, and there is ample no- 
tice for the President and his assist- 
ants to take heed and provide fun- 
damental changes in this very, very 
important measure. 

Madanv President, I suggest the ab- 
sence of a quorum. 

The PRE&IDING • OFFICER. The 
clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 
roll. 

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I 
ask Unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The l^RESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 

fNAMMOfS-CONSENT REQUEST 

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I 
do not know how long we are going to 
be in session yet today. I am advised 
that the distinguished majority leader 
is scheduled to come to the floor for 
wrap-up at 12 noon. We may be in ses- 
sion longer; I am no"t sure: 

I ask unanintous consent, that I may 
insert in the Record a floor statement 


HOMOSEXUALS IN THE MILITARY 

Mr. COATS. Madam President, yes- 
terday the President made the follow- 
ing statement about a proposal on ho- 
mosexuals in the military: "I think we 
are very close to a compromise." 

The President indicated that he had 
been in consultation with congres- 
sional leaders. 

I am puzzled as to who is involved in 
that consultation. I can indicate that 
none of us on the Republican side have 
been engaged in any discussion with 
the President on the so-called com- 
promise that he has proposed. 

And yesterday, on the floor. Senator 
NUNN, who I think is the undisputed 
congressional leader when it comes to 
not only this issue, but all issues of 
military importance, indicated: 

I have not had «siy discussions with admin- 
istration officials On the outlines of any pro- 
posal on this issue that they may be working 
on. 

So I really do not know who the 
President has been referring to when 
he said he has been in discussion with 
congressional officials. 


\ 


12026 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


I also And it almost impossible to as- 
certain where the President is on this 
issue. For months, he has made un- 
equivocal statements indicating that 
he wants to lift the ban completely, 
that he thinks the former policy is not 
the policy that he would endorse, that 
he would be issuing an Executive order 
to lift that ban. He has repeated on nu- 
merous occasions his support for the 
complete lifting of the ban as advo- 
cated by those in the homosexual com- 
munity and those certainly in support 
of that position. 

Lately, there has been some equivo- 
cation on his part in terms of whether 
this will be the right political solution 
to the problem. Apparently, in reading 
the polls and the mail, the President 
has decided that that former position 
might not be one that he wants to em- 
brace from a political standpoint. 

This latest declaration has produced 
all kinds of conflicting statements 
coming from those who both support 
lifting of the ban and those on who op- 
pose lifting of the ban. 

I have read now four different inter- 
pretations of the members of the homo- 
sexual community and those who advo- 
cate Hfting the ban as to what the 
President means by saying he is close 
to a compromise; four different inter- 
pretations. 

There is great confusion "on the side 
of those of us who do not advocate lift- 
ing the ban, for reasons we have stated 
and will continue to state as to what 
the interpretation is of the President's 
so-called compromise. 

So I call upon the President, if he is 
close to agompronuser to tell us ex- 
actly wj*«(t that compromise is and ex- 
actly^>who is he consulting with on the 
congressional side, because I think 
there are a number of Members here 
who have a very important stake in the 
outcome of that issue that obviously 
have indicated they have not been con- 
sulted. 

Now. many claim that the Presi- 
dents compromise is one which would 
reglalate conduct while on duty on 
base, but allow the private conduct off 
duty off base to be exempted from any 
possible military oversight. 

Well, I think this shows-a real lack of 
understanding of military life. 

As the military has so often indi- 
cated, there really is no such thing as 
off duty for many of our people in uni- 
form. What does it mean to be off duty 
in Somalia? What does it mean to be 
off duty in the Persian Gulf? What does 
it mean to be off duty on an aircraft 
carrier deployed at sea or a submarine 
under the polar ice? 

Really, what does it mean to be off 
duty, even though you do your 8-to-5 
job on base, or for the person who sim- 
ply lives on the base and across the 
street, or perhaps crosses the street 
outside the base and lives in an apart- 
ment across the street? 

Senator Nun.n pointed out yesterday 
the participants of Tailhook were off 


duty. They were out of uniform. It was 
a weekend. It supposedly was a purely 
private matter. 

Is the President going to endorse a 
proposal which would allow the kind of 
conduct that took place at the 
Tailhook convention to be exempted 
from any military regulation? I do not 
think that is what he intends. Yet his 
so-called compromise proposal indi- 
cates that that is what he would like. 

There is a serious proposal on the 
table. That proposal has little to do 
with the President's plan or the Presi- 
dent's comments. And that proposal is 
Senator Nunn's proposal. Many in Con- 
gress are rushing to embrace it. 

I have, however, some very serious 
questions that I think need to be an- 
swered to our satisfaction before we 
can say that is the so-called solution to 
this problem. 

I am a hard-sell on the issue, because 
there is a great deal at stake. What is 
at stake is the most efficient, effective 
military the world has ever seen; thaf 
is a deterrent to aggression, a deter- 
rent to war and brutality in many 
places of the world; that has protected 
our freedom for more than 200 years, 
and I think an institution which many 
of us takes a great deal of pride in, 
which Americans take a great deal of 
pride in. 

It is more efficient now than it has 
ever been, more effective, now than it 
has ever been, because of many of the 
policies that have been adopted and 
followed by the military and endorsed 
by this Congress. 

So I am very reluctant to change It, 
particularly when those, in the mili- 
tary — not just the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
not just Colin Powell and Norm 
Schwarzkopf— but all the people all the 
\yay down through the ranks. Many on 
down the ranks — sergeants, corporals, 
privates, enlisted men. officers, and 
others — tell us that a change in this 
policy will seriously undermine the ef- 
fectiveness, the normal discipline, the' 
good order, as Qolin Powell has indi- 
cated, that it is so important to the ef- 
fectiveness of the military. 

These are the questions, however, I 
think that need some answers before 
we can rush to embrace a "don't ask, 
don't tell" compromise, which has been 
offered, which is a seriou^s proposal and 
merits a serious discussion. 

Question 1: What exactly does "don'^t 
ask" mean? We know it is meant to 
imply at induction or recruitment 
time, but what about later? C4n a com- 
mander, witlv adequate reasons to do 
so. ask the question? If the answer is 
yes. then what is that commander's re- 
sponse to be? How will this affect in- 
vestigations? How will this affect the 
potential discharge proceedings? How 
will this affect the morale of the unit, 
and the military unit cohesiveness and 
effectiveness that so many have told us 
is important? 

Question 2: What exactly does "don't 
tell" mean? What about actions off 


base? For many soldiers, off base and 
private time have no meaning. If a unit 
knows a soldier is a homosexual, even 
if he or she does not advertise it, all 
the problems we have identified in the 
six hearings we have had will still 
exist. 

Question 3: What will be the dis- 
charge procedure? Will the military re- 
tain its right to discharge homosexuals 
because their presence is incompatible 
with military service? What abou« 
those who have been previously dis- 
charged or those who are in the pipe- 
line of discharge? What do we do with 
those people? 

Question 4: Will "don't ask. don't 
tell" invite legal challenges? Can we 
really write consistent, clear rules 
which define "don't tell " which are 
fairly applied? If not, will it lead di- 
rectly to the courts? Do we sacrifice 
the legal consistency of the military's 
ban with "don't ask, don't tell"? Can 
we really define for that commander 
who has to make decisions in the field, 
what "don't tell" means? In terms of 
every aspect of the private life or so- 
called off-duty life or off-base h'fe of a 
military— enlisted or officer— individ- 
ual? I am not so sure we can do that. 

Finally, there is a question I' am ask- 
ing myself. Is- "don't ask, don't tell" 
really not just a, political answer to a 
military problem? Homosexuality is ei- 
ther consistent with military life or it 
is inconsistent with military life. This 
is the questioh that requires an answer. 
All the testimony is clear. \yhy should 
we muddy the water with ambivalence? 
Are we finessing what we should be de- 
ciding? Are we looking for a political 
compromise that will just in the end 
confuse our policy? 

The issue seems to be moving quickly 
but I hope not too quickly. We have 
carefully explored lifting the ban and 
it will not work. But we have not given 
the same pareful attention to the pro- 
posed solution, the ""don't ask, don't 
tell "■ policy. People on both sides ire 
making assumptions that have yet to 
be examined. The stakes are high 
enough to justify patience and study, 
not a rush to compromise. I hope this 
body and the President and others 
studying the issue at the Pentagon wilt 
take the time to get the answers to the 
questions so the ftnal policy decision 
that we make is the correct one. ' 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr'. 
RoBB). The Chair recognizes the major- 
ity leader. Senator Mitchell. 


EXECUTIVE SESSION 


EXECUTIVE CALENDAR . 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Presideat. I. ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed -to executive session to con- 
sider the following nominations: 

Calendar 176. David T. Elwood, to be 
an Assistant Secretary of Health and. 
Human Sei'^ices; 


May 23, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12027 


Calendar 178. Charlene Barshefsky, to 
be a Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, 
with the rank of Ambassador; 

Calendar 179. Rufus Hawkins Yerxa, 
to be a Deputy. U.S. Trade Representa- 
' live, with the fank of Ambassador; 

Calendar 187. Webster L. Haljbell, to' 
be Associate Attorney General; 

Calendar 188. Drew S. Days III. to be 
Solicitor General of the United States; 
Calendar 189. Philip Benjamin 
Heymann. to be Deputy Attorney Gen- 
eral; 

Calendar 190. Clarence L. Irving. Jr.. 
to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce 
for Communications and Information; 

Calendar 191. D. James Baker, to be 
Under- Secretary of Commerce for 
Oceans and Atmosphere; 

Calendar 192. Arati Prabhakar, to be 
Director of the National Institute of 
"Standards and Technology; 

Calendar 193. Douglas Kent Hall, to 
be Assistant Secretary of Commerce 
for Oceans and Atmosphere; 

Calendar 194. Stephen H. Kaplan, to 
be General Counsel of the^ Department 
of Transportation; 

Calendar 195. Mortimer L. Downey, 
to be Deputy Secretary of Transpor- 
tation; 

Calendar 196. Michael P. Huerta, to 
be Associate Deputy Secretary of 
Transportation; 

Calendar 197. Kathryn t). Sullivan, to 
be Chief Scientist of the National Oce- 
anic and Atmospheric Administration; 

Calendar 199. Steven Alan Herman, to 
be an Assistant Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency; 

Calendar 200. David Gardiner, to be 
an Assistant Administrator of the En- 
vironmental Protection Agency; 

Calendar 201. Rodney E. Slater, to be 
Administrator of the Federal Highway 
Administration;. 

Calendar 202. Michael A. Stegman, to 
be Assistant Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development; 

Calendar 203. Joseph Shuldiner, to be 
an Assistant Secretary of Housihg and 
Urban Development; 
" Calendar 204. Marilyn A. Davis, to be 
an Assistant Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development; 

Calendar 205. Aida Alvarez, to be Di- 
rector of the Office of Federal Housin 
Enterprise Oversight; 

Calendar 206. Andrew M. CudTnt?; to 
be- an Assistant Secretary of Housing 
and Urban Development; 

Calendar 207. Sally Katzen, to be Ad- 
ministrator of the Office of Informa- 
tion and Regulatory Affairs; 

.Calendar 208. Philip Lader. to be Dep- 
uty Director for Management, Office of 
Management and Budget: 

Calendar 209. Steven S. Honigman, to 
be General Counsel of the Department 
of the Navy; 

Calendar 210. Edward L. Warner III, 
to be ah Assistant Secretary of De- 
fense; 

Calendar 211. Anita K. Jones, to be 
Director of Defense Research and Engi- 
neering; 


Calendar 212. Harold P. Smith, Jr.. to 
b6 Assistant to the Secretary of De- 
fense for Atomic Energy; 

Calendar 213. Deborah Roche Lee, to 
be Assistant Secretary of Defense; 

Calendar 214. Emmett Paige, Jr., to 
be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; 

Calendar 215. Walter Becker 
Stocombe. to be Deputy Under Sec- 
retary of Defense for Policy; 

Calendar 216. Brig. Gen. Michael J. 
Nardotti, Jr., and Brig. Gen. Kenneth 
D. Gary, to be the Judge Advocate Gen- 
eral: major general, the Assistant 
Judge Advocate General, and major 
general, respectfully: 

Calendar 217. Marilyn McAfee, to be 
Ambassador Extraordinary and Pleni- 
potentiary of the United States of 
America to the Republic of Guatemala: 
Calendar- 218. William Thornton 
Pryce. to be Ambassador Extraor- 
dinary and Plenipotentiary of the Unit- 
ed States of America to the Republic of 
Honduras; ' .- 

Calendar 219. John Howard Francis 
Shattuck, to be Assistant Secretary of 
State for Human Rights and Humani- 
tarian Affairs: 

Calendar 220. James Riic^ard Cheek, 
to be Ambassador Extraordinary arid 
Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
America to Argentina; and 

Calendar 221. Joan E. Spero. to be 
U.S. Alternate Governor of the Inter- 
national Bank for Reconstruction and 
Develcg)ment; U.S. Alternate Governor 
of the Inter- American Development 
Bank; U.S. Alternate Governor of the 
African Development Bank; U.S. Alter- 
nate Governor of the African Develop- 
ment Fund; U.S. Alternate Governor of 
the Asian Development Bank; and U.S. 
Alternate Governor of the European 
Bank for Reconstruction and Develop- 
ment; .; 

I further ask unanimous consentTthat 
the nominees be confirmed, en bloc, 
that any statements appear in the 
Record as if read, th^t the motions to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, en 
bloc, that the President be imme- 
diately notified of the Senate's action, 
and that the Senate return to legisla- 
tivG session. 

le PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 
objection? 

Mr. BROWN. Reserving the right to 
object. 

The PRESIDII>ft} OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator from Colorado reserves the right 
to object. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I shall 
not object but I wanted to at least 
place in the Record my concerns about 
the European Bank for Reconstruction 
and Development. This particular 
bank, after its first 2 years of oper- 
ation, had spent over $300 million on 
overhead and they had only loaned 
about $240 million. It is a scandal of 
major proportions. Their offices, for 
example, were decorated at a cost of 
somewhere in the neighborhood of $87 
"million, according to the Financial 


Times of London. When they did not 
like the marble that was originally put 
in. the office it was replaced at a cost of 
$1.2 million. 

This particular entity I think is a 
poster child of waste and corruption. 
This occurred under the previous ad- 
ministration, not this administration. 
The nominee that is included in the 
list here, Ms. Spero, is concerned about 
it. I have talked to her about it. She 
has not. however, given a commitment 
that she will vote to get rid of the 
president of this bank. 

She has, however, indicated the ad- 
ministration's interest in clearing this 
up— there is an audit report that is due 
out in June — and committed to refer 
that to the Congress and to the Foreign 
Relations Committee. 

Mr. President, I will not object. Ms. 
Spero has convinced me that she is 
concerned about this ^matter. I must 
say, though. I would feel much better if 
the administration were committed to 
getting rid of the president of this 
bank. It is clear he is totally incapable 
•of proper management and his record is 
one of a scandalous waste of funds, in- 
clujjing the portion Chat is donated by 
the United States. 

So I want to express my concern; ex- 
press delight in Ms. Spero's commit- 
ment to deal with this problem; and in- 
. dicate this is something "1 will be fol- 
lowing up on. 

I withdraw my reservation. Mr. 
President. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 
objection? Without objection, it is so 
ordered. 

The nominations considered and con- 
firmed en bloc are as follows: 

Dep.\rtment of He.^lth .\nd Human- 
Services 
David T. EUwood. of Massachusetts, to be 
an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human 
Services. 

Executive Office of the President 
Charlene Barshefsky. of the District of Co- 
lumbia, to be a Deputy U.S. Trade Rep- 
resentative, with the rank of Ambassador. 

Rufus Hawkins Yerxa. of the District of 
Columbia, to be a Deputy U.S. Trade Rep- 
resentative, with the rank of Ambassador. 
DEP.ARTME>tr OF Justice 
Webster L. Hubbell. of Arkansas, to be As- 
sociate Attorney General. 

Drew S. Days III. of Connecticut, to be So- 
licitor General of the United States. 

Philip Benjamin Heymann. of Massachu- 
setts, to be Deputy Attorney General. 
Department of Commerce 
Clarence L. Irving. Jr., of New York, to be 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Com- 
munications and Information. 

D. James Baker, of the District of Colum- 
bia, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for 
Oceans and Atmosphere. 

Arati Prabhakar, of Texas, to be Director 
of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technolog^y. 

Douglas Kent Hall, of Kentucky, to be As- 
sistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans 
and Atmosphere. 

Department of TRANSPORTA-nos 
Stephen H. Kaplan, of Colorado, to be Gen- 
eral Counsel of the Department of Transpor- 
tation. 


12028 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


Mortimer L. Downey, of New York, to be 
Deputy Secretary of Transportation. 

Michael P. Huerta. of California, to be As- 
sociate Deputy Secretary of Transportation. 
Nation.al Ocea.mc .and Atmospheric 
administration 

Kathryn D. Sullivan, of Texas, to be Chief 
Scientist of the National Oceanic and At- 
mospheric Administration. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Steven Alan Herman, of New York, to be 
an Assistant Administrator of the Environ- 
mental Protection Agency. 

David Gardiner, of Virginia, to be an As- 
sistant Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. 

Departme.nt of Transportation 

Rodney E. Slater, of Arkansas, to be Ad- 
ministrator of the Federal Highway Admin- 
istration. 

Department of Housing and Urban 
Development 

Michael A. Stegman. of North Carolina, to 
be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development. 

Joseph Shuldiner. of California, to be an 
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development. 

Marilyn A. Davis, of New York, to be an 
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development. 

Aida Alvarez, of California, to be Director 
of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise 
Oversight. Development of Housing and 
Urban Development, for a term of 5 years. 
(New position) 

Andrew M. Cuomo, of New York, to be an 
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development. 

E.xEcuTivE Office of the President 

Sally Katzen. of the District of Columbia, 
to be Administrator of the Office of Informa- 
tion and Regulatory Affairs. Office of Man- 
agement and Budget. 

Philip Lader. of South Carolina, to be Dep- 
uty Director for Management, Office of Man- 
agement and Budget. 

Departme.nt of Defense 

Steven S. Honigman. of New York, to be 
General Counsel of the Department of the 
Navy. 

Edward L. Warner. HI. of Virginia, to be an 
Assistant Secretary of Defense. 

Anita K. Jones, of Virginia, to be Director 
of Defense Research and Engineering. 

Harold P. Smith. Jr.. of California, to be 
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for 
Atomic Energy. 

Deborah Roche Lee. of Maryland, to be an 
Assistant Secretary of Defense. 

Emmett Paige. Jr.. of Maryland, to be an 
Assistant Secretary of Defense. 

Walter Becker Slocombe. of the District of 
Columbia, to be Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy. 

In the Army 

The following-named officers for appoint- 
ment as the judge Advocate General and the 
Assistant Judge Advocate General, respec- 
tively. U.S. Army, in the grade of major gen- 
eral, under the provisions of title 10. United 
States Code, section 3037: 

To be the Judge Advocate General and Major 
General 

Brig. Gen. Michael J. Nardotti, Jr., 052-38- 
4892, U.S. Army. 

To be the Assistant Judge Advocate General and 
Major General 

Brig. Gen. Kenneth D. Gray. 236-70-5969. 
U.S. Army. 


Departme.nt of State 

Marilyn McAfee, of Florida, a career mem- 
ber of the Senior Foreign Service, class of 
Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Ex- 
traordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Unit- 
ed States of America to the Republic of Gua- 
temala. 

William Thornton Pryce. of Pennsylvania, 
a career member of the Senior Foreign Serv- 
ice, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Am- 
bassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 
of the United States of America to the Re- 
public of Honduras. 

John Howard Francis Shattuck. of Massa- 
chusetts, to be Assistant Secretary of State 
for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. 

James Richard Cheek, of Arkansas, a ca- 
reer member of the senior Foreign Service. 
Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambas- 
sador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of 
the United States of America to Argentina. 
International Banks 

Joan E. Spero, of New York, to be U.S. Al- 
ternate Governor of the International Bank 
for Reconstruction and Development for a 
term of 5 years; U.S. Alternate Governor of 
the Inter-American Development Bank for a 
term of 5 years; U.S. Alternate Governor of 
the African Development Bank for a term of 
5 years; Alternate Governor of the African 
Development Fund; U.S. Alternate Governor 
of the Asian Development Bank; and U.S. Al- 
ternate Governor of the European Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development. 
statement on the nomination of drew days 

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I rise 
today in strong support of the nomina- 
tion of Drew S. Days III, for Solicitor 
General. 

The work of the Solicitor General 
usually does not receive a great deal of 
attention from the press. Nonetheless, 
because the Solicitor is charged with 
representing the Federal Government 
before the Supreme Court, the post is 
critically important. 

Throughout our history, the Nation 
has been well served by a number of 
distinguished Solicitor Generals. In 
this century, the post has been filled 
by such luminaries as Robert Jackson. 
Archibald Cox. and Thurgood Marshall. 
With his impressive intellect, dedica- 
tion to equal justice, and balanced ap- 
proach to legal issues. Drew Days will 
carry on that tradition of excellence. 

Drew's association with my home 
State of Connecticut dates back to the 
1960's when he was a student at Yale 
Law School. At Yale. Drew began his 
work in civil rights law in conjunction 
with the Law Students Civil Rights Re- 
search Council. 

After his graduation from Yale. Drew 
went to work for a law firm in Chicago. 
But he did not say in private practice 
for long. Instead, in 1967, he responded 
to President Kennedy's echoing call to 
national service and joined the Peace 
Corps. He helped organize an agricul- 
tural cooperative in Comayagua. Hon- 
duras. Drew's concern for the world's 
less fortunate citizens continues 
through his more recent work as a pro- 
fessor at his alma mater. Yale, where 
he directs the school's center for inter- 
national human rights. 

Of course. Drew is best known for his 
efforts to make our Nation's legal sys- 


tem live up to its promise of equal jus- 
tice for all. As a litigator with the 
NAACP. Legal Defense and Education 
Fund, he fought to desegregate schools . 
across the country. He also adminis- 
tered a program that helped African- 
American lawyers set up private prac- 
tices in their hometowns. 

Eventually, Drew's outstanding work 
gained the attention of then-Judge 
Griffin Bell. After Judge Bell became 
Attorney General. Drew accepted his 
invitation to become the Assistant At- 
torney General for -Civil Rights. 

More recently. Drew has devoted his 
energies to the education of the next 
generation of lawyers. At Yale, he has 
earned the respect of his colleagues and 
students and received a number of 
awards and honors. Hopefully, his stu- 
dents have learned the balanced ap- 
proach to issues, that characterizes 
Drew's legal scholarship. 

During his confirmation hearing be- 
fore the Judiciary Committee, Drew 
noted the difficult task ahead: 

[T)he Solicitor General's job is not an easy 
one for it entails, on the one hand, being a 
forceful and effective advocate for the gov- 
ernment before the Supreme Court. On the 
other hand, the Solicitor General, for both 
ethical and pragmatic reasons, has a duty to- 
ward the Supreme Court "of absolute candor 
and fair dealing. " 

Because of his breadth of experience, 
depth of knowledge, and unquestioned 
integrity, I am confident that Drew 
will properly balance his various duties 
and make an outstanding Solicitor 
General. We will miss him in Connecti- 
cut, but we are pleased that he will be 
working to strengthen the Nation's 
legal system. 

statement on the nomination of PHILIP B. 

heymann 

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, 
President Clinton has nominated Prof. 
Philip B. Heymann to be Deputy Attor- 
ney General of the United States. From 
1979 to 1981, Professor Heymann served 
as Assistant Attorney General in 
charge of the Criminal Division at the 
Department of Justice, which is the po- 
sition charged with responsibility for 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

It was during this period that the 
FBI's undercover sting operation 
known as Abscam took place. Ab- 
scam — short for "Arab Scam"— took its 
name from an undercover scheme in 
which FBI agents and thsir informants 
posed as representatives of two 
wealthy Arab sheiks. Abscam began as 
a stolen property investigation in early 
1978, but within a few months came to 
focus almost entirely on political cor- 
ruption. The operation sought to in- 
duce Members of Congress to introduce 
legislation in exchange for money. 

Twelve public officials — seven Mem- 
bers of Congress among them— were 
convicted of various offenses in Ab- 
scam. On March 11, 1982, Senator Har- 
rison A. Williams of New Jersey re- 
signed from the Senate after the Select 


May 28, 1993 


Committee on Ethics unanimously re- 
ported a resolution recomrftending his 
expulsion. 

To study Abscam, the Senate estab- 
lished the Select Committee to Study 
Undercover Activities of Components 
of the Department of Justice. Charles 
McC. Mathias, Jr., of Maryland was 
chairman; Walter D. Huddleston of 
Kentucky was vice chairman. In its 
final report in 1982, the committee 
found that: 

* * * [T]argeting occurred in Abscam on 
the basis of political party and on the basis 
of geographic location. (S. Rpt. No. 97-682. 
97th Cong.. 2d Sess. 67.) 

As an example, on October 9, 1979, in 
a conversation among Anthony 
DeVito— (in reality, FBI Special Agent 
Amoroso) — Melvin Weinberg — a con- 
victed swindler and FBI informant— 
an'd Howard Criden — a middleman in 
the scheme— the following exchange 
took place: 

Criden: That's what you would prefer, to 
have guys spread out all over the country? 

DeVito (Amoroso): Well. I would. I would. 
And I tell you what I would prefer, too: like 
I have discussed with you. undkl even men- 
tioned it to Angelo [Errichetti^nother Ab- 
scam defendant], it would be nice to have 
some guys that are Republicans in here, too. 
Only for the fact that it doesn't look like the 
push would be comin' from just, ya know, 
one group. * * * (Id.) 

A Similar incident occurred on Sep- 
tember 18, 1979, when in a conversation 
with Criden, Melvin Weinberg, the 
FBI's informant, asked Criden: 

Okay. now. the only other thing I want to 
ask you is. how about some Republicans? 
Doesn't it look bad its all Democrats? (Id: at 
68.) 

The Senate Select Committee point- 
ed out the dangers of such targeting: 

One such danger is that innocent persons 
will be subjected to investigations * * * in 
the absence of a justifiable basis for inves- 
tigating those persons rather than any oth- 
ers. * * * .4 related danger is that law enforce- 
ment agents or officials will select individuals 
for investigation on the basis of criteria unre- 
lated to legitimate law enforcement purposes — 
criteria such as political opposition or personal 
animosity. (Id. at 67.) (Emphasis supplied.) 

Mr. President, the actions of the De- 
partment of Justice also included an 
abortive attempt by the FBI to involve 
me and the late Senator Jacob Javits 
in Abscam. In September of 1979. one 
William Rosenberg, a convicted swin- 
dler, whom the FBI used as a middle- 
man in their scheme, bragged to a Gov- 
ernment informant that he had con- 
tacted Senator Javits and me about 
the acceptance of bribes. Mr. Rosen- 
berg also claimed he could reach Sen- 
ator Robert S. Kerr of Oklahoma, who 
had been dead nearly 17 years. (Mr. 
Rosenberg later confessed to lying 
about having contacted Senator Javits 
and me.) In reply, the Government in- 
formant, Melvin Weinberg, said: 

Javits we would definitely like and we'd 
like Moynihan. (FBI transcript, Sept. 10, 
1979,) 

6SM).W (>— 97 Vol 1U9 (Pi. 9) 2 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 

In view of these events, it was not 
surprising when Chairman Mathias' Se- 
lect Committee found that: 

[I]n deciding whether to investigate par- 
ticular public figures in ABSCAM. the FBI 
excessively relied upon the uncorroborated 
representations of unwitting, corrupt mid- 
dlemen. (S. Rpt. No. 97-682 at 57). 

In Abscam, Mr. President, the De- 
partment of Justice introduced into 
the practice of American Government 
police behavior which the world associ- 
ates with corruption, tyranny, dicta- 
torship, and worse. The Justice Depart- 
ment doubtless behaved from the best 
of motives. Even so, the Abscam oper- 
ation amounted to an invasion of the 
legislative branch by the executive 
branch. What would Madison have 
thought of this? 

Mr. President, I met with then-As- 
sistant Attorney General Heymann in 
December, 1980, to discuss Abscam. We 
exchanged letters on the subject in 
early 1981. And we spoke about it fur- 
ther on May 14 of this year, when he 
and Dhe Attorney General met with me 
in my office. 

As the Senate moves to confirm Phil- 
ip B. Heymann to be Deputy Attorney 
General. I would hope that he will be 
alert to the dangers of such undercover 
activities and mindful of the conclu- 
sions of the Select Committee. The De- 
partment of Justice must ensure that 
its investigations proceed with due re- 
gard for the constitutional rights of 
citizens and for the adequate protec- 
tion of Congress from abuses of power- 
inadvertent or intentional — by the ex- 
ecutive branch. 
statement on the nomination of clarence 

IRVING 

Mr. ROLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise 
today in support of the nomination of 
Clarence Irving for Assistant Secretary 
of Commerce for Communications and 
Information and as Administrator of 
the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration [NTIA]. A§ 
headed of NTIA, Mr. Irving will serve 
as the principal adviser to the Presi- 
dent for our Nation's telecommuni- 
cations policy. Mr. Irving's nomination 
was considered before the Commerce 
Committee and approved unanimously 
by voice vote. 

Mr. Irving has had an impressive ca- 
reer in public service with a focus on 
telecommunications policy. He served 
the last 6 years as the senior counsel 
on telecommunications for the U.S. 
House of Representatives' Subcommit- 
tee on Telecommunications and Fi- 
nance. He has valuable working knowl- 
edge on issues ranging from cable TV, 
satellites, high-definition television, 
and spectrum-related issues that will 


12029 


help him in his new role at NTIA. In 
his position as Assistant Secretary, 
Mr. Irving will share in the responsibil- 
ity of shaping our country's tele- 
communications infrastructure. His 
prior experiences will be a valuable 
asset in his role as adviser to both the 
President and Secretary of Commerce. 


Mr. Irving also has an opportunity to 
show that Government can be a useful 
tool in shaping the administration's 
telecommunications policy. I believe 
Mr. Irving's experience as legislative 
director for the late Congressman 
Mickey Leland is an important part of 
his qualifications. Mickey Leland was 
one of the finest Members of the House 
of Representatives. Knowing that Mr. 
Irving shares Mickey's philosophy 
about public service, I am sure he will 
be a major asset in the challenges he 
will face at NTIA. I fully support Mr. 
Irving's belief that our telecommuni- 
cations policies must ensure that 
inner-city children have the same ac- 
cess to the information age as children 
in urban, more affluent sections of our 
country. I am confident he will serve 
with the same dedication and commit- 
ment he has shown in the past. 

statement on the nomination of dr. d. 

JAMES baker 

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this 
afternoon I am pleased to discuss the 
nomination of Dr. D. James Baker to 
be Under Secretary of Commerce for 
Oceans and Atmosphere. As Under Sec- 
retary. Dr. Baker would, of course, 
serve as Administrator of the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- 
tion [NOAA]. 

As most of my colleagues recognize, 
the Department of Commerce is per- 
haps the most diverse of the Federal 
Departments, with wideranging respon- 
sibilities for trade and technology, 
communications, population statistics 
and the census, and environmental 
monitoring. What they may not realize 
is that NOAA comprises over half of 
the Department budget and more than 
a third of its personnel. 

NOAA was created by the President's 
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 to 
consolidate many of our Nation's oce- 
anic and atmospheric programs. Cou- 
pled with the establishment of the En- 
vironmental Protection Agency, the 
creation of NOAA was part of a reorga- 
nization effort designed to unify the 
Nation's fragmented environmental ac- 
tivities and provide a rational and sys- 
tematic approach to understanding, 
protecting, developing, and using the 
Earth environment. Among the roles 
assigned to NOAA are: First, managing 
of ocean and coastal resources for the 
economic and social good of the Na- 
tion; second. providing weather 
warnings and forecasts for the protec- 
tion of lives and property; third, map- 
ping of U.S. coastal areas and air 
space; fourth, research and monitoring 
to improve our understanding and abil- 
ity to predict climate and environ- 
mental change; and fifth, managing the 
Nation's civilian operational whether 
satellite systems and the data these 
systems collect. Over the years, NOAA 
has developed substantial scientific 
and technical expertise to address a 
broad range of oceanic and atmospheric 
issues. Strong leadership will be re- 


V-f .•: 


12030 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


quired to deal with the difficult chal- 
lenges facing NOAA as the agency 
seeks to meet its diverse responsibil- 
ities in an increasingly austere fiscal 
climate. 

Dr. Baker is eminently qualified to 
provide that leadership. His strong aca- 
demic background in oceanography and 
the atmospheric sciences, and diverse 
career experience and achievements 
clearly provide him with the necessary 
credentials for this demanding posi- 
tion. 

With respect to education. James 
Baker has an undergraduate degree in 
physics from Stanford University and a 
doctorate in physics and mathematics 
from Cornell. Continuing in academia. 
Dr. Baker cofounded and served as the 
first dean of the College of Ocean and 
Fishery Sciences at the University of 
Washington, and he was a faculty 
member at the University of Washing- 
ton and Harvard University for more 
than two decades. In addition. Dr. 
Baker received postdoctoral fellow- 
ships at the University of California at 
Berkeley and the University of Rhode 
Island. 

Prior to his nomination to be Under 
Secretary of Commerce, Dr. Baker 
served as president of Joint Oceano- 
graphic Institutions [JOI] Inc., a non- 
profit research management corpora- 
tion representing the 10 largest U.S. 
academic oceanographic institutions. 
He also served as a distinguished visit- 
ing scientist at the California Institute 
of Technology's Jet Propulsion Labora- 
tory, advising on remote sensing of the 
Earth. 

Dr. Baker has previous experience 
with NOAA as leader of the Deep-Sea 
Physics Group at the Pacific Marine 
Environmental Laboratory and as a 
Tnember of the NOAA/University of 
Washington Joint Institute for the 
Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean. 
He also served as a member of the advi- 
sory panel for NOAA's Climate and 
Global Change Program. He has pub- 
lished more than 80 papers, written the 
book -'Planet Earth— the View from 
Space," and holds a joint patent for a 
deep-sea pressure gauge. Because of his 
impressive experience with ocean and 
atmospheric issues, he has been asked 
to serve on numerous scholarly panels 
and committees. 

In summary. Dr. Baker would provide 
articulate, thoughtful leadership to 
guide NOAA in an era of growing re- 
sponsibilities and shrinking fiscal re- 
sources. I strongly endorse his nomina- 
tion and support his selection as Under 
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
Atmosphere. 

STATEMENT ON THE NO.MINATION OF DR. AR.ATI 
PRABHAKAR 

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am 
pleased that the Senate is now consid- 
ering the nomination of Dr. Arati 
Prabhakar to be Director of the Com- 
merce Department's National Institute 
of Standards and Technology [NIST]. 


Dr. Prabhakar brings skill and en- 
thusiasm to this important job. The 
daughter of a hard-working immigrant 
family, she holds a Ph.D. in applied 
physics from the California Institute of 
Technology. She worked at the Con- 
gressional Office of Technology Assess- 
ment, and in recent years has been a 
senior technical manager at the Ad- 
vanced Research Projects Agency 
[ARPA], where she has supervised re- 
search projects on microelectronics. In 
her ARPA capacity, she has overseen 
the Sematech consortium, perhaps still 
the most successful and important of 
industry-Government technology part- 
nerships. She brings real experience to 
her new job. 

Her experience and enthusiasm will 
serve her well at an agency that is 
poised for a significantly expanded 
role. With the end of the cold war, the 
greatest international challenge now 
facing this Nation is economic. If the'- 
United States cannot successfully com- 
pete, and if we cannot lead the world in 
applying new technologies to the full 
range of American industries, then our 
citizens and our country will be poorer. 
Since 1901, NIST and its precedessor!^ 
agency have been the Government's 
one agency whose primary purpose is 
to support civilian industrial tech- 
nology. Now that economic competi- 
tiveness has moved to the forefront of 
the national agenda, the President is 
proposing significant expansions in 
NIST's laboratory, extension, and ad- 
vanced technology programs. Under 
the leadership of Secretary Ron Brown, 
the Commerce Department will be 
ready to work with American industry 
to ensure continued U.S. economic 
strength and prosperity. 

We are fortunate to have attracted 
such a talented individual to run NIST, 
and I look forward to working with Dr. 
Prabhakar. 

Mr. President, I strongly support this 
nomination and urge our colleagues to 
support it. 

STATE.MENT ON THE NO.MINATION OF DOUGLAS K. 
HALL 

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am 
pleased to support the nomination of 
Douglas K. Hall to be the Assistant 
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
Atmosphere. The Assistant Secretary 
serves as Deputy Administrator of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- 
ministration [NOAA], assisting and ad- 
vising the Under Secretary for Oceans 
and Atmosphere in all his responsibil- 
ities. If confirmed, Mr. Hall will have 
specific responsibilities for overseeing 
NOAA public and congressional affairs 
and directing intergovernmental rela- 
tions as well. 

Prior to his nomination, Mr. Hall 
served as vice president of the Nature 
Conservancy, a 670,000-member organi- 
zation dedicated to preserving the 
world's biodiversity. He managed the 
organization's communications and 
public outreach efforts, coordinated 


public relations and public policy ef- 
forts, and produced all the organiza- 
tion's publications, films, and other 
media. Prior to joining the Nature Con- 
servancy, Mr. Hall was a partner of the 
Communications Co., a Washington- 
based media consulting firm from 1989 
to 1991. He also has served as press sec- 
retary, and then chief of staff, for Sen- 
ator Jim S.^SSER from 1987 to 1989. His 
background clearly demonstrates expe- 
rience with oceans issues and public af- 
fairs. 

I am pleased to support him for his 
position, and I urge my colleagues to 
support his nomination. 

STATF.MENT ON THE NOMINATION OF STEPHEN H. 
KAPLAN 

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today 
I urge my colleagues to support the 
nomination of Stephen H. Kaplan to be 
general counsel of the Department of 
Transportation [DOT]. His nomination 
was unanimously approved by the Com- 
mittee on Commerce. Science, and 
Transportation at its executive session 
on May 25, 1993. 

If confirmed as general counsel, Mr. 
Kaplan will serve as the chief legal of- 
ficer for the Department of Transpor- 
tation, and will be the final authority 
within DOT on questions of law. There 
are many important regulatory and 
other legal matters in which DOT is in- 
volved, and the DOT general counsel 
has the critical responsibility for co- 
ordinating these efforts and ensuring 
that such legal matters are resolved 
expeditiously. 

I am confident that Mr. Kaplan is 
prepared for this challenge. If con- 
firmed, he would come to this position 
with an exemplary academic and pro- 
fessional record and a clear commit- 
ment to public service. He has had 
many years of legal experience serving 
as' attorney or legislative advisor at 
various levels of government. He is cur- 
rently on leave from the law firm of 
Davis, Graham and Stubbs in Denver, 
CO. Prior to this position, he served as 
city attorney for the city of Denver, as 
an associate and then partner at the 
law firm of Kelly. Haglund. Garnsey 
and Kahn. and as an assistant and then 
first assistant attorney general for the 
State of Colorado. In his position as 
Denver city attorney, Mr. Kaplan was 
involved in matters relating to the 
Denver International Airport. 

This outstanding nominee deserves 
our support, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting his confirma- 
tion. 

ST.\TEKENT ON THE NOMINATION OF MORTIMER 
L. DOWNEY 

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am 
pleased that the Senate is considering 
the nomination of Mortimer L. Downey 
to be Deputy Secretary of Transpor- 
tation. At its executive session on May 
25, 1993. the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation unani- 
mously ordered this nomination re- 
ported favorably. 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12031 


This nominee brings to a critical po- 
sition at the Department of Transpor- 
tation [DOT] exceptional career experi- 
ence in transportation and public agen- 
cy management. He has demonstrated 
his transportation expertise and mana- 
gerial ability in a variety of senior 
posts with two major public agencies, 
as an assistant secretary in the execu- 
tive branch, and with the Congress in 
supporting its oversight responsibil- 
ities. Since 1981. Mr. Downey has 
served as a senior official with the Na- 
tion's largest public transportation 
agency, the Metropolitan Transpor- 
tation Authority [MTA] in New York, 
where he was most recently executive 
director and chief financial officer. 
Prior to his tenure with MTA. Mr. 
Downey was Assistant Secretary for 
Budget and Programs at DOT from 1977 
to 1981. From 1975 to 1977. he worked as 
a transportation analyst with the 
House Budget Committee, an assign- 
ment which followed 15 years in var- 
ious management positions with the 
Post Authority of New York and New 
Jersey. 

Mr. President, this nominee has a 
strong working knowledge of the var- 
ious institutions which must function 
together in order for DOT to function 
efficiently and for our national trans- 
portation system to operate effec- 
tively. Furthermore, because Mr. Dow- 
ney has served extensively with State 
and local authorities and has been in- 
volved in the operation of Federal pro- 
grams at the State and local levels, he 
knows well what kinds of Federal ini- 
tiatives lead to productive partnerships 
and better delivery of services in trans- 
portation. 

For fiscal year 1994, President Clin- 
ton has proposed more than $40 billion 
in taxpayer funds for DOT programs. If 
confirmed as Deputy Secretary, Mr. 
Downey will be entrusted with assist- 
ing the Secretary in overseeing the ap- 
propriate expenditure of these funds. 
Under the Secretary's guidance, he will 
be charged with implementing DOT'S 
mission of ensuring a safe and efficient 
national transportation system. These 
tasks are challenging, but ones to 
which the nominee brings a wealth of 
knowledge and expertise. 

Mr. President, I am confident that 
Mortimer L. Downey's professional 
background and experience has pre- 
pared him well for the tremendous 
challenges confronting DOT and our 
Nation's system of transportation. I 
welcome this opportunity to rec- 
ommend Mortimer Downey's confirma- 
tion as Deputy Secretary of Transpor- 
tation, and I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting this outstanding 
nomination. 

STATE.MENT ON THE NOMINATION OF MICHAEL P. 
HUERTA 

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise 
today to support the nomination of Mr. 
Michael P. Huerta to be Associate Dep- 
uty Secretary of Transportation. At its 


executive session on May 25. 1993, <he 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation ordered this nomina- 
tion reported favorably. 

Mr. Huerta, if confirmed, will be the 
second person to serve as the Director 
of the Office of Intermodalism within 
the Department of Transportation 
[DOT]. This office was recently created 
under the Intermodal Surface Trans- 
portation Act of 1991 to promote the 
development of a national intermodal 
transportation system in the United 
States. The aim of the Office of Inter- 
modalism is to bring together the var- 
ious elements of the U.S. transpor- 
tation industry in order to move goods 
more efficiently and economically 
across the country. 

Mr. Huerta is eminently qualified for 
this position. He has had significant 
experience with intermodal issues, hav- 
ing recently served as the executive di- 
rector of the port of San Francisco and 
prior to that as the commissioner for 
the Department of Ports, International 
Trade, and Commerce for the city of 
New York. In these positions, he was 
responsible for developing more effi- 
cient intermodal systems for the two 
major ports. He clearly understands 
the importance of intermodalism and 
the challenges that he will face in this 
important area. 

I recently chaired Mr. Huertas con- 
firmation hearing and found him to be 
an impressive and well-informed nomi- 
nee. His responses to questions posed 
by the committee showed an indepth 
knowledge of the area. Because the Of- 
fice of Intermodalism is still in its 
formative stage, it is important to 
have a person of Mr. Huerta's back- 
ground and ability to provide it with 
strong leadership. If confirmed. I am 
confident that he will contribute much 
to the advancement of intermodalism 
in this country. 

I enthusiastically support Mr. 
Huerta's confirmation, and urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting 
this outstanding nominee. 

STATEME.NT ON THE NO.MINATION OF DR. 
KATHRYN D. SULLIVAN 

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on 
Tuesday, May 25, the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transpor- 
tation unanimously approved the nom- 
ination of Dr. Kathryn D. Sullivan to 
be Chief Scientist of the National Oce- 
anic and Atmospheric Administration. 

The Chief Scientist of NOAA is the 
principal scientific advisor to the 
Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmos- 
phere in the Department of Commerce. 
Responsibilities for the Chief Scientist 
include serving as NOAA's principal 
spokesperson on scientific and techno- 
logical issues, formulating and rec- 
ommending scientific policy, and pro- 
viding guidance to NOAA managers on 
scientific and technological issues. 

Dr. Sullivan is especially qualified to 
serve at NOAA. She was a mission spe- 
cialist astronaut with the National 


Aeronautics and Space Administration 
[NASA] from 1978 until 1992. and has 
flown on three space shuttle missions. 
Dr. Sullivan is known for being the 
first American woman to walk in 
space. However, it is her involvement 
in scientific experiments on all three 
shuttle flights, and her responsibility 
for the scientific operations aboard the 
1992 flight of Atlantis that reflect Dr. 
Sullivan's abilities and qualifications. 

From 1986 to 1993. she served as the 
director of educational programs at the 
Challenger Center for Space Science 
Education in Alexandria. VA. Once 
again. Dr. Sullivan's commitment to 
science, and her ability to take a lead- 
ership position are demonstrated by 
her involvement in the design and de- 
velopment of the programs being of- 
fered at the 13 Challenger learning cen- 
ters. Dr. Sullivan also served as an ad- 
junct professor at Rice University from 
1985 to 1992. 

Although Dr. Sullivan's "professional 
experience is with NASA, her academic 
background is in earth science and ma- 
riite geology. She has participated in 
several oceanographic research and 
survey cruises. In addition, she is a 
lieutenant commander in tjie Naval Re- 
serve, and has been involved in the de- 
sign and procurement of sensors, com- 
puters, and software which will provide 
the Navy with accurate environmental 
data. 

Basically, Mr. President, Dr. Sullivan 
is exactly whom NOAA needs for the 
position of Chief Scientist. Her impres- 
sive academic background in science, 
and her successful career as a mission 
specialist astronaut involving sci- 
entific research and the application of 
technology are right on target for the 
direction in which NOAA is heading. 
NOAA is a unique agency in that it 
places a high priority on both science 
and the application of science for bet- 
ter management of our ocean, coastal, 
and atmospheric resources. Dr. Sulli- 
van has been instrumental in linking 
science and techinology and the appli- 
cation of that : technology while at 
NASA, and I am confident that she will 
do the same at NOAA. 

STATEMENT ON THE HUD NO.MINATIONS 

Mr. BOND. Mr. President. I stand in 
support of the nominations for HUD of 
Ms. Aida Alvarez to be Director of the 
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise 
Oversight, Mr. Andrew Cuomo to be As- 
sistant Secretary for Community Plan- 
ning and Development. Ms. Marilyn 
Davis to be Assistant Secretary for Ad- 
ministration. Mrs Joseph Shuldiner to 
be Assistant Secretary for Public and 
Indian Housing, and Prof. Michael 
Stegman to be Assistant Secretary for 
Policy Developm^t and Research. 

I have had an opportunity to review 
the credentials of each of these individ- 
uals, and I consider each nominee to be 
an outstanding choice. In particular. I 
want to complinvent both Ms. Alvarez 
and Mr. Shuldiner. I had the distinct 


12032 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


pleasure of personally meeting with 
both Ms. Alvarez and Mr. Shuldiner. I 
found Ms. Alvarez to be well qualified 
for the position of the Director of the 
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise 
Oversight. I also found Mr. Shuldiner 
to be well qualified for the position of 
Assistant Secretary for Public and In- 
dian Housing. I look especially forward 
to working with Mr. Shuldiner on the 
many issues currently facing public 
housing, including finding solutions to 
distressed public housing, issues of 
poor management, and the general pol- 
icy of housing the poorest of the poor 
in public housing. 

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues 
to support these nominations. 

ST.1TEMENT ON THE NOMIN.'VTION OF SALLY 
K.^TZEN 

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President. I rise in 
support of Sally Katzen's confirmation 
as Administrator of the Office of Infor- 
-mation and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA). 
She is very well qualified by education, 
service, and experience to take on one 
of the most challenging roles in Gov- 
ernment. 

In recent years Congress has passed 
much legislation that will generate 
much regulation. With the escalating 
growth of regulation, it is imperative 
that someone review regulations for 
their legality, their rationality, their 
conflicts, their efficiency, their effi- 
cacy, their societal benefits, their soci- 
etal costs, and their conformity with 
the administration's policies. In our 
present Government structure, that 
task is the responsibility of OIRA. 

It is well known that the administra- 
tion is reevaluating current executive 
orders governing regulatory review. 
Sally Katzen, by authority of the office 
she will hold and by dint of her knowl- 
edge and experience, ought to play the 
major role in this reevaluation. How- 
ever, with some concern. I have re- 
ceived information from sources within 
the business community that the ad- 
ministration had already decided to re- 
vise the current executive orders with- 
out incorporating a cost-benefit and 
comparative risk analyses, for which 
the Senate has just recently shown 
such overwhelming support, when it 
adopted the Johnston amendment to 
the EPA elevation bill by a vote of 95- 
3. 

Mr. President, I am pleased to say 
that I have personally spoken with the 
Vice President on this matter. He has 
assured me that this information is not 
true, that no decision has been made, 
and that the committee will be con- 
sulted before any new Executive order 
is signed. The nominee has also assured 
me that, upon her confirmation, she 
plans to convene interested adminis- 
tration players, to fashion a tentative 
draft Executive order, and then seek 
input from the agencies that will be 
subject to the order and from Govern- 
mental Affairs Committee members as 
well. 


I note that the nominee has in her 
prior life advocated, as I have, that the 
regulatory review process for individ- 
ual regulations also cover independent 
agencies, with appropriate exceptions. 
I would encourage her to continue that 
advocacy within the administration. 
Finally. I would encourage her and the 
administration to share the draft Exec- 
utive order with all concerned — not 
only agencies and committee members, 
but also with the public— by asking for 
public comment. This was the approach 
taken by President Carter. In view of 
the keen interest of so many in any 
new Executive order on regulatory re- 
view, I would suggest that the concerns 
of many could be allayed by following 
that precedent. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I would 
like to say I am delighted to see No. 
179. Rufus Hawkins Yerxa, is amongst 
those to be confirmed. Those of us in 
the Finance Committee have worked 
with him for many years, as I am sure 
the majority leader has. 

He is outstanding. I am delighted he 
has been appointed and we are confirm- 
ing him today. 


LEGISLATIVE SESSION 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 
the previous order, the Senate will re- 
sume legislative session. 


MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT 

Messages from the President of the 
United States were communicated to 
the Senate by Mr. Thomas, one of his 
secretaries. 


EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED 

As in executive session the Presiding 
Officer laid before the Senate messages 
from the Presi(Jent of the United 
States submitting sundry nominations 
which were referred to the appropriate 
committees. 

(The nominations received today are 
printed at the end of the Senate pro- 
ceedings.) 


EXECUTIVE AND OTHER 
COMMUNICATIONS 

The following communications were 
laid before the Senate, together with 
accompanying papers, reports, and doc- 
uments, which were referred as indi- 
cated: 

EC-871. A communication from the Presi- 
dent of the United States transmitting, pur- 
suant to law. a report relative to the con- 
tinuation of a waiver of application of cer- 
tain subsections of section 402 of the Trade 
Act to the People's Republic of China; to the 
Committee on Finance. 


INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND 
JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

The following bills and joint resolu- 
tions were introduced, read the first 


and second time by unanimous con- 
sent, and referred as indicated: 

By Mr. ROTH (for himself. Mr. LOTT. 
Mr. Dole. Mr. Si.mpson. Mr. Cochran, 
Mr. NiCKLEs. Mr. Mack. Mr. Craig. 
Mr. Bennett. Mr. Hatch, Mr. Wal- 
lop. Mr. Thurmond. Mr. Stevens, 
Mr. Helms. Mr. Mlrkowskl Mr. 
Burns, Mr. Coats. Mr. Smith. Mr. 
Faircloth. and Mr. Gregg): 
S. 1058. A bill to amend the Internal Reve- 
nue Code of 1986 to create real jobs in .Amer- 
ica through investment and savings incen- 
tives, to pay for such incentives by decreas- 
ing Federal spending, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance. 

By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. 
Mlrkowski): 
S. 1059. A bill to include Alaska Natives in 
a program for Native culture and arts devel- 
opment; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 
By Mr. ROBB (for himself and Mr. 

WARNER): 
S. 1060. A bill to amend the Internal Reve- 
nue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit to 
businesses which mine metallurgical coal 
and are required to make contributions to 
the UMWA Combined Benefit Fund created 
by the Energy Policy Act of 1992; to the Com- 
mittee on Finance. 

By Mr. RIEGLE (for himself and Mr. 
Chafee): 
S. 1061. A bill to increase the funds avail- 
able under title XX of the Social Security 
Act for block grants to States for social 
services, and for other purposes; to the Com- 
mittee on Finance. 

By Mr. WOFFORD: 
S. 1062. A bill to amend the National Agri- 
cultural Research. Extension, and Teaching 
Policy Act of 1977 to improve the dissemina- 
tion of information produced by the Agricul- 
tural Research Service, and for other pur- 
poses; to the Committee on Agriculture. Nu- 
trition, and Foi-estry. 

By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. 
Breaux): 
S. 1063. A bill to amend the Employee Re- 
tirement Income Security Act of 1974 to clar- 
ify the treatment of a qualified football 
coaches plan; to the Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources. 

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER: 
S. 1064. A bill to amend title XIX of the So- 
cial Security Act to clarify coverage of cer- 
tified nurse-midwife services performed out- 
side the maternity cycle under the medicaid 
programs; to the Committee on Finance. 
By Mr. DeCONCINI: 
S. 1065. A bill to deny the People's Repub- 
lic of China most-favored-nation trade treat- 
ment; to the Committee on Finance. 

By Mr. RIEGLE (for himself and Mr. 
Levin): 
S. 1066. A bill to restore Federal services to 
the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians; to 
the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

By Mr. MITCHELL (for Mr. KRUEGER): 
S. 1067. A bill to authorize and encourage 
the President to conclude an agreement with 
Mexico to establish a United States-Mexico 
Border Health Commission; to the Commit- 
tee on Foreign Relations. 
By Mr. ROBB: 
S. 1068. A bill to reduce the Federal budget 
deficit and encourage energy conservation 
through an increase in the motor fuels excise 
tax. and for other purposes; to the Commit- 
tee on Finance. 

By Mr. DURENBERGER: 

S. 1069. A bill to require any person who is 

convicted of a State criminal offense against 

a victim who is a minor to register a current 

address with law enforcement officials of the 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12033 


State for 10 years after release from prison, 
parole, or supervision; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary. 

By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. 
STEVENS): 

S. 1070. A bill to provide that certain po- 
litically appointed Federal officers may not 
receive cash awards for a certain period dur- 
ing a Presidential election year, to prohibit 
cash awards to Executive Schedule officers, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs. 
By Mr. COCHRAN: 

S. 1071. A bill to provide that certain civil 
defense employees and employees of the Fed- 
eral Emergency Management Agency may be 
eligible for certain public safety . officers 
death benefits, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs. 
By Mr. BRADLEY: 

S. 1072. A bill to amend the Social Security 
Act to provide assistance to States in provid- 
ing services to support informal caregivers 
of individuals with functional limitations; to 
the Committee on Finance. 
By Mr. SPECTER: 

S. 1073. A bill to extend until December 31. 
1994. the deadline for the State of Pennsylva- 
nia to submit certain provisions of a Clean 
Air Act implementation plan applicable to 
the Liberty Borough PM-10 Nonattainment 
Area, and for other purposes: to the Commit- 
tee on Environment and Public Works. 

By Mr. KERI^Y (for himself. Mr. 
CHArtiE. Mr. LiEBERMAN. and Mr. 
Baucl'S): 

S. 1074. A bill to provide for the develop- 
ment and implementation of a national 
strategy to encourage and promote opportu- 
nities for the United States private sector to 
provide environmentally sound technology, 
goods, and services (especially source reduc- 
tion and energy efficiency technology, goods, 
and services) to the global market, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Bank- 
ing, Housing, and Urban .■\ffairs. 


drawal from Lebanon, and for other pur- 
poses; to the Committee on Foreign Rela- 
tions. 


SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND 
SENATE RESOLUTIONS 

The following concurrent resolutions 
and Senate resolutions were read, and 
referred (or acted upon), as indicated: 
By Mr. BROWN (for himself. Mr. Pres- 

SLER, Mr. DURENBERGER, Mrs. KASSE- 

BAUM, Mr. Grassley. Mr. Nickles. 

and Mr. Craig): 
S. Res. 115. A resolution expressing the 
sense of the Senate regarding the need to 
eliminate price-gouging in the transpor- 
tation of food assistance to Russia; to the 
Committee on Commerce. Science, and 
Transportation. 

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself. Mr. Gor- 
ton. Mr. Daschle. Mr. Baucus. Mr. 

Campbell. Mr. Johnston. Mr. DeCon- 

CINI. and Mr. Harkin): 
S. Con. Res. 27. A bill to express the sense 
of Congress that funding should be provided 
to begin a phase-in toward full funding of the 
special supplemental food program for 
women, infants, and children (WIC) and of 
Head Start programs and to expand the Job 
Corps program, and for other purposes: to 
the Committee on Labor and Human Re- 
sources. 

By Mr. RIEGLE (for himself. Mr. 

Mitchell, Mr. Dole, Mr. Pell. Mr. 

Helms, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Brown. 

Mr. Wallop, and Mr. Levin): 
S. Con. Res. 28. A concurrent resolution ex- 
pressing the sense of the Congress regarding 
the Taif Agreement and urging Syrian with- 


STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED 
BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

By Mr. ROTH (for himself. Mr. 

Lott, Mr. Dole. Mr. Si.mpson. 

Mr. Cochran. Mr. Nickles, Mr. 

Mack. Mr. Craig. Mr. Bennett, 

Mr. Hatch. Mr. Wallop. Mr. 

Thurmond. Mr. Stevens. Mr. 

Helms, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 

Burns, Mr. Co.'vts. Mr. Smith, 

Mr. Faircloth, and Mr. 

Gregg): 
S. 1058. A bill to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to create real jobs 
in America through investment and 
savings incentives, to pay for such in- 
centives by decreasing Federal spend- 
ing, and .for other purposes: to the 
Committee on Finance. 

REAL .JOBS FOR AMERICA ACT OF 1993 

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, Ameri- 
cans are calling for dramatic changes 
from the Clinton approach to economic 
policy. They want Congress to go be- 
yond the business-as-usual tax-and- 
spend approach President Clinton has 
taken. They want real reform that 
translates into real jobs, real family 
security, and real long-term economic 
strength for America. 

Today I am introducing a bill that of- 
fers a completely different approach 
from the President. The President 
wants to raise taxes. Our bill would cut 
taxes. The President wants to increase 
the size of Government. This bill would 
cut the size of Government. The Presi- 
dent's program will stifle economic 
growth and result in as many as 1.2 
million lost jobs. This bill would spur 
economic growth and create more than 
800,000 jobs. 

The President has talked of change. 
He has asked the American people to 
sacrifice. But this is not a change. Con- 
gress has been requiring them to sac- 
rifice for years now, by increasing 
taxes year after year, including 1982, 
1984, 1985, 1987, 1989, and the largest tax 
increase in history in 1990. This bill of- 
fers real change. A tax cut paid for by 
real spending reductions guaranteed in 
law through spending caps. Change 
from Congress' business-as-usual of in- 
creasing taxes is exactly what this leg- 
islation proposes — legislation that 
finds support from a group of over 20 
Senators. 

And I want to thank my colleague. 
Senator Lott from Mississippi, for his 
hard work and thoughtfulness in put- 
ting this plan together. 

The Real Jobs for America Act rep- 
resents a 180-degree turn from the so- 
called job stimulus that President 
Clinton offered to the Senate several 
weeks ago, where it Was appropriately 
defeated. As we all know well, his was 
a program that would have cost almost 
S20 billion. More importantly, his jobs 


bill was a program that was not paid 
for. 

What we propose, on the other hand, 
is a dramatic step in the opposite di- 
rection from President Clinton's eco- 
nomic plan— his plan that promises 
S272 billion in net new taxes and only 
$55 billion in spending cuts — his plan 
that calls for $5 in increased taxes for 
every $1 he offers in spending cuts. 
With numbers like those, is there any 
wonder why President Clinton's popu- 
larity is falling— what he is offering is 
more of the same— the 1970's revisited. 

But the plan we present today is dif- 
ferent. Madam President. And I might 
remind my colleagues that it is a plan 
President Clinton invited when he 
asked us to come up with something 
different if we did not like the old tax 
and spend ways he is advocating. This 
plan promises 800,000 new jobs, it prom- 
ises deficit reduction, and it is fully 
paid for. It offers over $50 billion in 
specific spending cuts and encourages 
economic growth and job creation, as 
well as savings incentives for the pri- 
vate sector through $41 billion in tax 
incentives. 

The Clinton so-called job stimulus 
plan, by contrast, offered absolutely 
nothing for private sector job creation 
incentives, and it largely relies on defi- 
cit financing to provide temporary 
Government jobs. 

That is not what Americans want. It 
is not what our families need. And it 
certainly is no way to strengthen our 
country for global economic competi- 
tion. However, the plan we are intro- 
ducing today is what Americans want; 
it is what we need. 

Instead of increasing the size and 
overbearing nature of Government, 
this plan harnesses the ingenuity of 
the private sector— the engine of real 
economic growth and opportunity. A 
dollar put to work in the private sector 
results in more jobs and more growth 
than a dollar taken up by Government 
spending. Americans know that. The 
taxpayer understands it. And they are 
going to support this plan. 

It has been estimated by the minor- 
ity staff of the Joint Economic Com- 
mittee that this plan will generate 
800.000 new jobs by 1998— and these are 
long-term. private-sector jobs— not 
temporary. Government make- work 
jobs. This plan will create jobs that 
will get the American economy moving 
again and restore consumer confidence. 

Since we first unveiled this jobs plan, 
I have received calls from all over the 
Nation from people who support it — 
people who are enthusiastic, people 
who see this as the answer they have 
been waiting for. 

Calls and letters have been coming in 
from housewives, senior citizens, small 
business owners, farmers, and many 
others. They support this plan because 
they recognize it represents the only 
real chance for getting the economy 
moving and creating jobs. 


12034 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


Our jobs program does something 
that the Clinton plan never could— it 
encourages employers to be optimistic 
about the future. This week's news 
that the Consumer Confidence Index 
has fallen to its lowest level since last 
October is only one indication that 
higher taxes will not improve our econ- 
omy. 

The American people clearly under- 
stand that Clinton's economic program 
and reliance on higher taxes will only 
depress the economy. Without a doubt. 
President Clinton's tax increase — the 
largest in U.S. history—will not result 
in economic recovery or more jobs. 
Taxes never have created wealth and 
they never will. You cannot tax Amer- 
ica into prosperity, and one only needs 
to look at recent history to see why. 
When you take money out of the pri- 
vate sector you also take out initia- 
tive. You eliminate incentives for 
working, saving, investing. 

Rather than hire and expand, busi- 
nesses lay off and reduce work forces. 
Rather than spend and even invest, 
consumers retrench and wait to see 
what Government will do. 

But not with this jobs bill. This bill 
presents the opportunity to turn the 
country around and take a course of 
action in a different direction fcom the 
President. We believe that this pack- 
age of tax incentives will encourage 
growth and jobs, and we must move be- 
fore it is too late. Consumer confidence 
is already falling. 

Other economic figures are following, 
proving the ill effects that President 
Clinton's tax proposals are already 
having on businesses — especially with 
his tax proposals that are retroactive 
to January 1. 1993. His package does 
not wait to stifle growth and jobs. It 
has already begun! 

The choices are clear. Madam Presi- 
dent. There are two paths before us. 
The Clinton plan, which takes us to 
enormous tax increases, job loss, and 
bigger Government. 

And, the Real Jobs for America Ac 
of 1993 plan, which promises the kinds 
of jobs and real economic growth 
America needs. And these promises 
come paid for by real spending cuts. 

We intend to offer this amendment at 
the earliest reasonable opportunity. on 
the Senate floor, and I encourage all 
the Members of the Senate to cospon- 
sor this program. 

I ask unanimous consent that a copy 
of a description of the bill, and the bill 
itself be printed in the Record. 
' There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as fojlows: 

S. 1058 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembied. 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the "Real Jobs 
for America Act of 1993' '. 


TITLE I— INVESTMENT AND SAVINGS 
INCENTIVES 

SEC. 100. AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE. 

Except as otherwise expressly provided, 
whenever in this Act an amendment or re- 
peal is expressed in terms of an amendment 
to, or repeal of. a section or other provision, 
the reference shall be considered to be made 
to a section or other provision of the Inter- 
nal Revenue Code of 1986. 
Subtitle A— Reductions in Cost of Capital and 

Tax Penalties on Investment 
SEC. 101. INDEXING OF CERTAIN ASSETS FOR 
PURPOSES OF DETERMINING GAIN 
OR LOSS. 

(a) I.N GENER.-M..— Part II of subchapter O of 
chapter 1 (relating to basis rules of general 
application) is amende^ by inserting after 
section 1021 the following new section; 

-SEC. 1022. INDEXING OF CERTAIN ASSETS FOR 
PURPOSES OF DETERMINING GAIN 
OR LOSS. 

•■(a) General Rule.— 

••(1) Indexed basis substituted for ad- 
justed BASIS.— Except as provided in para- 
graph (2). if an indexed asset which has been 
held for more than 3 years is sold or other- 
wise disposed of. for purposes of this title the 
indexed basis of the asset shall be sub- 
stituted for its adjusted basis. 

■■(2) Exception for depreciation, etc— 
The deduction for depreciation, depletion, 
and amortization shall be determined with- 
out regard to the application of paragraph (1) 
to the taxpayer or any other person". 

■•(b) Indexed Asset.— 

■■(1) In general. —For purposes of this sec- 
tion, the term 'indexed asset' "means — 

••(.■\) stock in a corporation. 

••(B) tangible property (or any Interest 
therein) which is a capital asset or property 
used in the trade or business (as defined in 
section 1231(b)). and 

•■(C) the principal residence of the tax- 
payer (Within the meaning of section 1034). 

■•(2) Certain property excluded.— For 
purposes of this section, the term indexed 
asset' does not include— 

■■(A) Creditor's interest.- Any interest in 
property which is in the nature of a credi- 
tor's interest. 

•■(B) Options.— Any option or other dsht 
to acquire an interest in property. " 

■■(C) Net lease property —In the case of a 
lessor, net lease property (within the mean- 
ing of subsection (h)(1)). 

» Certain preferred stock.— Stock 
is fixed and preferred as to dividends 
does not participate in corporate growth 
to any significant extent. 

■■(E) Stock in certain corporations.— 
Stock in — 

■•(i) an S corporation (within the meaning 
of section 1361). 

■■(ii) a personal holding company (as de- 
fined in section 542). and 

■■(iii) a foreign corporation. 

■■(F) Collectibles.— Any collectible (as de- 
fined in section 408(m)(2)). 

■■(3) Exception for stock in foreign cor- 
poration which is regularly traded on na- 
tional OR regional exchange —Clause (iii) 
of paragraph (2)(E) shall not apply to stock 
in a foreign corporation the stock of which is 
listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the 
American Stock Exchange, or any domestic 
regional exchange for which quotations are 
published on a regular basis other than — 

■■(A) stock of a foreign investment com- 
pany (within the meaning of section 1246(b)). 
and 

••(B) stock in a foreign corporation held by 
a United States person who meets the re- 
quirements of section 1248 (a)(2). 


Ills ui : 

'^ / ■■(D) 
/^which 
c and do 


■•(c) Indexed Basis.— For purposes of this 
section- 
ed) Indexed basis.— The indexed basis for 
any asset is — 

■■(A) the adjusted basis of the asset, multi- 
plied by 

"(B) the applicable inflation ratio. 

■•(2) Applicable infl.\tion ratio.— The ap- 
plicable inflation ratio for any asset is the 
percentage arrived at by dividing — 

■■(.\) the CPI for the calendar year preced- 
ing the calendar year in which the (lisposi- 
tion takes place, by 

■(B) the CPI for the calendar year 1992 (or. 
if later, the calendar year preceding the cal- 
endar year in which the asset was acquired 
by the taxpayer). 

The applicable inflation ratio shall not be 
taken into account unless it is greater than 
1. The applicable inflation ratio for any asset 
shall be rounded to the nearest one-tenth of 
1 percent. 

■■(3) CPI.— The CPI for any calendar year 
shall be determined under section 1(f)(4). 

••(d) Special Rules.— For purposes of this 
section— 

■•(1) Tre.-vtment as separ.^te asset.— In 
the case of any asset, the following shall be 
treated as a separate asset: » 

••(A) a substantial improvement to prop- 
erty, 

••(B) in the case of stock of a corporation. 
a substantial contribution to capital, and 

••(C) any other portion of an asset to the 
extent that separate treatment of such por- 
tion is appropriate to carry out the purposes 
of this section. 

••(2) Assets which are not indexed assets 
throughout holding period — 

••(A) In GENERAL.— The applicable inflation 
ratio shall be appropriately reduced for cal- 
endar months at any time during which the 
asset was not an indexed asset. 

•■(B) Certain short sales— For purposes 
of applying subparagraph (A), an asset shall 
be treated as not an indexed asset for any 
short .sale period during which the taxpayer 
or the taxpayer's spouse sells short property 
substantially identical to the asset. For pur- 
poses of the preceding sentence, the short 
sale period begins on the day after the sub- 
stantially identical property is sold and ends 
on the closing date for the sale. 

"(3) Treatment of certain distribu- 
tions. — A distribution with respect to stock 
in a corporation which is not a dividend shall 
be treated as a disposition. 

••(4) Section cannot increase ordinary 
loss —To the extent that (but for this para- 
graph) this section would create or increase 
a net ordinary loss to which section 1231(a)(2) 
applies or an ordinary loss to which any 
other provision of this title applies, such 
provision shall not apply. The taxpayer shall 
be treated as having a long-term capital loss 
in an amount equal to the amount of the or- 
dinary loss to which the preceding seirtence 
applies. 

■•(5) Acquisition date where there has 
been prior application of suBSEcrrioN (a)(1) 
WITH respect to the TAXPAYER.— If there has 
been a prior application of subsection (a)(1) 
to an asset while such asset was held by the 
taxpayer, the date of acquisition of such 
asset by the taxpayer shall be treated as not 
earlier than the date of the most recent such 
prior application. 

••(6) Collapsible corporations.— The ap- 
plication of section 341(a) (relating to col- 
lapsible corporations) shall be determined 
without regard to this section. 
••(e) Certain Conduit Entities.— 
••(1) Regulated investment companies: 

REAL estate investment TRUSTS; COMMON 
TRUST FUNDS.— 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12035 


•(A) In general.— Stock in a qualified in- 
vestment entity shall be an indexed asset for 
any calendar month in the same ratio as "the 
fair market value of the assets hefd by such 
entity at the close of such month which are 
indexed assets bears to the fair market value 
of all assets of such entity at the close of 
such month. 

"(B) Ratio of 90 percent or more.— If the 
ratio for ahy calendar month determined 
under subparagraph (A) would (but for this 
subparagraph) be 90 percent or more, such 
ratio for such month shall be 100 percent. 

"(C) Ratio of lo percent or less.— If the 
ratio for any calendar month determined 
under subparagraph (A) would (but for this 
subparagraph) be 10 percent or less, such 
ratio for such month shall be zero. 

■■(D) Valuation of assets in case of real 
estate invest.ment trusts.— Nothing in this 
paragraph shall require a real estate invest- 
ment trust to value its assets more fre- 
quently than once each 36 months (except 
where such trust ceases to exist). The ratio 
under subparagraph (A) for any calendar 
month for which there is no valuation shall 
be the trustee's good faith judgment as to 
■ such valuation. 

"(E) Qualified investment entity.— For ' 
purposes of this paragraph, the term quali- 
fied investment entity' means— 

••(i) a regulated investment company 
(within the meaning of section 851). 

••(ii) a real estate investment trust (within 
the meaning of section 856). and 

"(iii) a common trust fund (within the 
meaning of section 584). 

'•(2) Partnerships.— In the case of a part- 
nership, the adjustment made under sub- 
section (a) at the partnership level shall "be 
passed through to the partners. 

■•(3) Subchapter s corporations.— In the 
case of an electing small business corpora- 
tion, the adjustment under subsection (a) at 
the corporate level shall be passed through 
to the shareholders. 

•■(f) Dispositions Between Related Per- 
sons — 

"(1) In general.- This section shall not 
apply to any sale or other disposition of 
property between related persons except to 
the extent that the basis of such property in 
the hands of the transferee is a substituted 
basis. 

••(2) Related persons defined.— For pur- 
poses of this section, the term •related per- 
sons' means — 

'•(A) persons bearing a relationship set 
forth in section 267(b). and 

■'(B) persons treated as single employer 
under subsection (b) or (c) of section 414. 

■•(g) Transfers To Increase Indexing Ad- 
justmen^t or Depreciation Allowance.— If 
any person transfers cash. debt, or any other 
property to another person and the principal 
purpose of such transfer is — 

••(1) to secure or increase an adjustment 
under subsection (a), or 

"(2) to increase (by reason of an adjust- 
ment under subsection (a)) a deduction for 
depreciation, depletion, or amortization, 
the Secretary may disallow part or all of 
such adjustment or increase. 

"<h) DEFLNmoNS.— For purposes of this sec- 
tion— 

"(1) Net lease property defined.— The 
term "net lease property' means leased real 
property where— 

"(A) the term of the lease (taking into ac- 
count options to renew) w'as 50 percent or 
more of the useful life of the property, and 

"(B) for the period of the lease, the sum of 
the deductions with respect to such property 
which are allowable to the lessor solely by 


reason of section 162 (other than rents and 
reimbursed amounts with respect to such 
property) is 15 percent or less of the rental 
income produced by such property. 

"(2) Stock includes interest in common 
trust fund.— The term 'stock in a corpora- 
tion' includes any interest in a common 
trust fund (as defined in section 584(a)). 

"(i) Regulations.- The Secretary shall 
prescribe such regulations as may be nec- 
essary or appropriate to carry out the pur- 
poses of this section." 

(b) adjustmen-t to Apply for Purposes of 
Determining Earnings- and Profits.— Sub- 
section (f) of section 312 of such Code (relat- 
ing to effect on earnings and profits of gain 
or loss and of receipt of tax-free distribu- 
tions) is amended by adding at the end there- 
of the following new paragraph: 

••<3) Effect on earnings and profits of 
indexed basis.— For substitution of indexed 
basis for adjusted basis in the case of the dis- 
position of certain assets on or after January 
1. 1999, see section 1022(a)(1). " 

(c) Clerical amendment.— The table of 
sections for part II of subchapter O of such 
chapter 1 is amended by inserting after the 
item relating to section 1021 the following 
new item: 

"Sec. 1022. Indexing of certain assets for pur- 
poses of determining ' gain or 
loss." 

(d) Effective Date.— The amendments 
made by this section shall apply to disposi- 
tions on or after January 1. 1993, in taxable 
years ending after such date. 

SEC. 102. MODIFICATION TO MINIMUM TAX DE- 
PRECLV^nON RULES. 

(a) General Rule —Paragraph (1) of sec- 
tion 56(a) (relating to depreciation) is 
amended by redesignating subparagraphs (B). 
(C). and (D) as subparagraphs (C). (D). and 
(E). respectively, and by inserting after sub- 
paragraph (A) the following new subpara- 
graph; 

••(B) Treatment of certain personal 

PROPERTY placed IN SERVICE AFTER JUNE 30. 
1993.— • 

'•(i) In general.— In the case of any prop- 
erty to which this subparagraph applies, the 
depreciation deduction allowable under sec- 
tion 167 shall be determined under the alter- 
native system under section 168(g). except 
that the method of depreciation used shall be 
the method used for purposes of section 168. 

••(ii) Property to which subparagraph ap- 
plies.— This subparagraph shall apply to any 
tangible property placed in service after 
June 30. 1993. except that this subparagraph 
shall not apply to any residential rental 
property or nonresidential real property 
(within the meaning of section 168(e)). 

••(iii) COORCINATION WITH SUBPARAGRAPH 

(A I. -Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any 
property to which this subparagraph ap- 
plies." 

(b) Elimination of ACE Depreciation ad- 
JUST.ment.— Clause (i) of section 56(gK4)(A) 
(relating to depreciation adjustments for 
computing adjusted current earnings) is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the 
following new sentence; '•The preceding sen- 
tence shall not apply to any property to 
which subsection (a)(1)(B) applies, and the 
depreciation deduction with respect to such 
property shall be determined under the rules 
of subsection (a)(1)(B)." 

(c) Conforming amendments.— Section 
56(g)(4) is amended by striking subpara- 
graphs (E). (F). and (G) and by redesignating 
subparagraph (I) as subparagraph (E). 

(d) Effective Dates.— 

(1) Ln general.— Except as provided in this 
subsection, the amendments made by this 


section shall' apply to property placed in 
service after June 30. 1993. 

(2) Conforming changes.— The amend- 
ments made by subsection (c) shall apply to 
exchanges, acquisitions, and ownership 
changes after the date of the enactment of 
this Act. 

(3) COORDIN.ATION WrTH TRANSmONAL 

RULES.— The amendments made by this sec- 
tion shall not apply to any property to which 
paragraph (1) of section 56(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 does not apply by rea- 
son of subparagraph (D)(i) thereof (as redes- 
ignated by subsection (a) of this section). 
Subtitle B— Investment in Small Business 

SEC. 111. INCREASE IN EXPENSE TREATMENT 
FOR SMALL BUSINESS. 

(a) General Rule.— Paragraph (1) of sec- 
tion 179(b) (relating to dollar limitation) is 
amended by striking •'$10,000" and inserting 
••$25,000". 

(b) Indexation.— Section 179(b) is amended 
by adding at the end the following new para- 
graph: 

■15) Indexation —In the case of any tax- 
able year beginning after 1994. the $25,000 
amount under paragraph (1) shall be in- 
creased by an amount equal to such dollar 
amount multiplied by the cost-of-living ad- 
justment determined under section 1(0(3) for 
the calendar year in which the taxable year 
begins, except that section l(r)(3)(B) shall be 
applied by substituting 1993' for 1989'. The 
amount determined under the preceding sen- 
tence shall be rounded to the nearest mul- 
tiple of $100." 

(c) Effective D.ate.— The amendment 
made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable 
years beginning after June 30. 1992. 

Subtitle C — Increased Savings Tlirough 
Individual Retirement Accounts 
PART I— IRA DEDUCTION 
SEC. 121. RESTORA'TION OF IRA DEDUCTION. 

• (a) In General.— Section 219 (relating to 
deduction for retirement savings) is amended 
by striking subsection (g) and by redesignat- 
ing subsection (h) as subsection (g). 

(b) Technical and Conforming Amend- 
ments.— 

(1) Subsection (f) of section 219 is amended 
by striking paragraph (7). 

(2) Paragraph (5) of section 408(d) is amend- 
ed by striking the last sentence. 

(3) Section 408(0) is amended by adding at 
the end thereof the following new paragraph: 

"(5) Termination.— This subsection shall 
not apply to any designated nondeductible 
contribution for any taxable year beginning 
after December 31. 1995." 

(4) Subsection (b) of section 4973 is amend- 
ed by striking the last sentence. 

(c) Effective Dates — 

(1) In general.— The amendments made by 
this section shall apply to taxable years be- 
ginning after December 31. 1995. 

(2) Special accoun-ts.- For purposes of ap- 
plying section 408A of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 (as added by section 131). the 
amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after De- 
cember 31. 1993 (and to qualified transfers 
after the date of the enactment of this .\ct). 

SEC. 122, INFUVnON ADJUSTMENT FOR DEDUCT- 
IBLE AMOUNT. 

(a) In GENER.AL— Section 219, as amended 
by section 121. is amended by redesignating 
subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by in- 
serting after subsection (0 the following new 
subsection: 
"(g) Cost-of-Living Adjustments — 
"(1) In general.- If the cost-of-living 
amount for any calendar year is equal to or 
greater than $500. then each applicable dollar 


1203^ 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


amount (as previously adjusted under this 
subsection) for any taxable year beginning in 
any subsequent calendar year shall be in- 
creased by $500. 

•■(2) Cost-of-living amount.— The cost-of- 
living amount for any calendar year is the 
excess (if any) of— 

■(A) $2,000. increased by the cost-of-living 
adjustment for such calendar year, over 

•■(B) the applicable dollar amount in effect 
under subsection (b)(1)(A) for taxable years 
beginning in such calendar year. 

■•(3) Cost-of-living adjustment.— For pur- 
poses of this subsection— 

(A) In general— The cost-of-living ad- 
justment for any calendar year is the per- 
centage (if any) by which— 

••(i) the CPI for such calendar year, exceeds 

•■(ii) the CPI for 1994. 

■(B) CPI FOR ANY CALENDAR YEAR.— The 

CPI for any calendar year shall be deter- 
mined in the same manner as under section 
1(f)(4). 

■■(4) APPLICABLE DOLLAR AMOUNT —For pur- 
poses of this subsection, the term applicable 
dollar amount' means the dollar amount in 
effect under any of the following provisions: 

■•(A) Subsection (b)(1)(A). 

•■(B) Subsection (c)(2)(A)(i). 

•■(C) The last sentence of subsection (c)(2)." 

(b) Confor.ming Amend.ments.— 

(1) Section 408(a)(1) is amended by striking 
"in excess of $2,000 on behalf of any individ- 
ual" and inserting "on behalf of any individ- 
ual in excess of the amount in effect for such 
taxable year under section 219(b)(1)(A)". 

(2) Section 408(b)(2)(B) is amended by strik- 
ing •■$2,000" and inserting "'the dollar 
amount in effect under section 219(b)(1)(A) ". 

(3) Section 408(d)(5) is amended by striking 
••$2,250" and inserting 'the dollar amount in 
effect for such taxable year under section 
219(c)(2)(A)(i)". 

(4) Section 408(j) is amended by striking 
■■$2,000". 

(c) Effective Date.— The amendments 
made by this section shall apply to taxable 
years beginning after December 31. 1995. 

SEC. 123. COORDINATIO.N OF IRA DEDUCTION 
LIMIT WITH ELECTIVE DEFERRAL 
LIMIT. 

(a) In General.— Section 219(b) (relating to 
maximum amount of deduction) is amended 
by adding at the end thereof the following 
new paragraph: 

■■(4) Coordination with elective deferral 
LI.MIT — The amount determined under para- 
graph (1) or subsection (c)(2) with respect to 
any individual for any taxable year shall not 
exceed the excess (if any) of— 

■•(A) the maximum amount of elective de- 
ferrals of the individual which are excludable 
from gross income for the taxable year under 
section 402(g)(1). over 

■■(B) the amount so excluded." 

(b) Conforming Amend.ment.— Section 
219(c) is amended by adding at the end there- 
of the following new paragraph: 

■■(3) Cross reference.— 
'T'or reduction in paragraph (2) amount, 
see subsection (b)(4)." 

(c) Effective D.\te.— The amendments 
made by this section shall apply to taxable 
years beginning after December 31. 1995. 
PART U— NONDEDUCTIBLE TAX-FREE IRAa 

SEC. 131. establishment OF NONDEDUCTIBLE 
TAX-FREE INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT 
ACCOUNTS. 

(a) In Gener.\l.— Subpart A of part I of 
subchapter D of chapter 1 (relating to pen- 
sion, profit-sharing, stock bonus plans, etc.) 
is amended by inserting after section 408 the 
following new section: 


—SEC. 408A. INDIVIDUAL RETIREMEPifT PLUS AC- 
COUNTS. 

••(a) General Rule.— Except as provided in 
?bis section, an individual retirement plus 
account shall be treated for purposes of this 
title in the same manner as an individual re- 
tirement plan. 

■•(b) Individual Retireme.vt Plus Ac- 
count.— For purposes of this title, the term 
■individual retirement plus account' means 
an individual retirement plan which is des- 
ignated at the time of establishment of the 
plan as an individual retirement plus ac- 
count. 

••(c) Treatment of Contributions.— 

■•(1) No deduction allowed.— No deduction 
shall be allowed under section 219 for a con- 
tribution to an individual retirement plus 
account. 

■•(2) Contribution limit.— The aggregate 
amount of contributions for any taxable year 
to all individual retirement plus accounts 
maintained for the benefit of an Individual 
shall not exceed the excess (if any) of— 

••(A) the maximum amount allowable as a 
deduction under section 219 with respect to 
such individual for such taxable year, over 

•■(B) the amount so allowed. 

••(3) Special rules for cjualified trans- 
fers— 

■■(A) In general. — No rollover contribution 
may be made to an individual retirement 
plus account unless it is a qualified transfer. 

■■(B) Limit not to apply —The limitation 
under paragrapF (2) shall not apply to a 
qualified transfer to an individual retire- 
ment plus account. 

■(d) Tax Treatment of Distributions.— 

■•(1) In general.— Except fis provided in 
this subsection, any amount paid or distrib- 
uted out of an individual retirement plus ac- 
count shall not be included in the gross in- 
come of the distributee. 

■■(2) E.xception for earnings on contribu- 
tions HELD less than 5 YEARS.— 

••(A) In GENERAL.— Any amount distributed 
out of an individual retirement plus account 
which consists of earnings allocable to con- 
tributions made to the account during the 5- 
year period ending on the day before such 
distribution shall be included in the gross in- 
come of the distributee for the taxable year 
in which the distribution occurs. 

••(B) Ordering rule — 

•■(i) FiRST-iN, first-out RULE.— Distribu- 
tions from an individual retirement plus ac- 
count shall be treated as having been made— 

■■(I) first from the earliest contribution 
(and earnings allocable thereto) remaining 
in the account at the time of the distribu- 
tion, and 

••(II) then from other contributions (and 
earnings allocable thereto) in the order in 
which made. 

••(ii) Allocations between contributions 
AND E.\RNINCS.— Any portion of a distribution 
allocated to a contribution (and earnings al- 
locable thereto) shall be treated as allocated 
first to the earnings and then to the con- 
tribution. 

••(iii) ALLOCA'noN of earnings —Earnings 
shall be allocated to a contribution in such 
manner as the Secretary may by regulations 
prescribe. 

•(iv) Contributions in same year.— Except 
as provided in regulations, all contributions 
made during the same taxable year may be 
treated as 1 contribution for purposes of this 
subparagraph. 

■■(C) Cross reference.— 

'For additional tax for early withdrawal, 
see section 72(t). 

•(3) Qualified transfer.— 

■■(A) In general.— Paragraph (2) shall not 
apply to any distribution which Is trans- 


ferred in a qualified transfer to another indi- 
vidual retirement plus account. 

■■(B) Contribution period.— For purposes 
of paragraph (2). the individual retirement 
plus account to which any contributions are 
transferred shall be treated as haying held 
such contributions during any period such 
contributions were held (or are treated as 
held under this subparagraph) by the individ- 
ual retirement plus account from which 
transferred. 

■■(4) Special rules relating to certain 
transfers— .■ 

■■(A) In general.- Notwithstanding any 
other provision of law. in the case of a quali- 
fied transfer to an individual retirement plus 
account from an individual retirement plan 
or qualified plan which is not an individual 
retirem.ent plus account — 

•■(i) there shall be included in gross income 
any amount which, but for the qualified 
transfer, would be includible in gross in- 
come, but 

• (ii) section 72(t) shall not apply to such 
amount. 

■■(B) 4-YEAR RATABLE INCLUSION— In the 

case of any qualified transfer described in 
subparagraph (A) which is made during the 
phase-in period, any amount includible in 
gross income under subparagraph (A) with 
respect to such contribution shall be includ- 
ible ratably over the 4-taxabIe year period 
beginning in the taxable year in which the 
amount was paid or distributed out of the in- 
dividual retirement plan. 

••(C) Phase-in period— For purposes of 
subparagraph (B). the term phase-in period^ 
means the period beginning on the date of 
the enactment of this section and ending on 
the last day of the 2d calendar year following 
the calendar year in which such date of en- 
actment occurs." 

■•(e) Qualified transfer.— For purposes of 
this section— 

•(1) In general.— The term qualified 
transfer" means a transfer to an individual 
retirement plus account— 

••(A) from another such account: or 

•■(B) from an individual retirement plan or 
qualified plan, but only if such transfer 
meets the requirements of section 408(d)(3). 

••(2) Qualified plan.— The term qualified 
plan" means any trust or contract described 
in section 72(e)(5)(D) (i) or (ii). 

(b) Early Withdrawal Penalty.— Section 
72(t). as amended by section 141(c). is amend- 
ed by adding at the end thereof the following 
new paragraph: 

■■(8) Rules rel.ating to special individual 
RETIREME.NT ACCOUNTS —In the case of an in- 
' dividual retirement plus account under sec- 
tion 408A— 

•■(A) this subsection shall only apply to 
distributions out of such account which con- 
sist of earnings allocable to contributions 
made to the account during the 5-year period 
ending on the day before such distribution. 
and 

••(B) paragraph (2)(A)(i) shall not apply to 
any distribution described in subparagraph 
(A)." 

(c) EXCESS Contributions.— Section 4973(b) 
is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
following new sentence: ••For purposes of 
paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(C). the amount al- 
lowable as a deduction under section 219 
shall be computed without regard to section 
408A." 

(d) Conforming amendment.— The table of 
sections for subpart A of part I of subchapter 
D of chapter 1 is amended by inserting after 
the item relating to section 408 the following 
new item: 


■Sec. 


408A. Individual retirement plus ac- 
counts. " 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12037 


(e) EFFEcrrivE Dates— *" 

(1) In general.— Except as provided in 
paragraph (2). the amendments made by this 
section shall apply to taxable years begin- 
ning after December 31. 1993. 

(2) Qualified transfers in 1993.— The 
amendments made by this section shall 
apply to any qualified transfer after the date 
of the enactment of this Act. 

PART III— PENALTY-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS 
SEC. 141. DISTRIBUTIONS FROM CERTAIN PLANS 
MAY BE USED WITHOLT PENALTY TO 
PURCHASE FIRST HOMES, TO PAY 
HIGHER EDUCATION OR FINAN- 
CIALLY DEVASTATING MEDICAL EX- 
PENSES. OR BY THE LONG-TERM UN- 
EMPLOYED. 

(a) In General —Paragraph (2) of section 
72(t) (relating to exceptions to 10-percent ad- 
ditional tax on early distributions from 
qualified retirement plans) is amended by 
adding at the end thereof the following new 
subparagraph: 

••(D) Distributions from certain plans 

FOR first home PURCHASES OR EDUCATIONAL 

EXPENSES.— Distributions to an individual 
from an individual retirement plan, or from 
amounts attributable to employer contribu- 
tions made pursuant to elective deferrals de- 
scribed in subparagraph (A) or (C) of section 
402(g)(3) or section 501(c)(18)(D)(iii>— 

•■(i) which are qualified first-time home- 
buyer distributions (as defined in paragraph 
(6)): or 

••(ii) to the extent such distributions do 
not exceed the qualified higher education ex- 
penses (as defined in paragraph (7)) of the 
taxpayer for the taxable year."" 

(b) FINANCIALLY DEVASTATING MEDICAL EX- 
PENSES.— 

(1) In general.— Section 72(t)(3)(A) is 
amended by striking -(B)."". 

(2) Certain lineal descendants and an- 
cestors TREATED AS DEPENDENTS.— Subpara- 
graph (B) of section 72(t)(2) is amended by 
striking •medical care"" and all that follows 
and inserting "medical care determined— 

••(i) without regard to whether the em- 
ployee itemizes deductions for such taxable 
year, and 

••(ii) by treating such employee's depend- 
ents as including— 

••(I) all children and grandchildren of the 
employee or such employee's spouse, and 

••(II) all ancestors of the employee or such 
employee's spouse." 

(3) Conforming amendment.— Subpara- 
graph (B) of section 72(t)(2) is amended by 
striking "or (C) " and inserting '. (C) or (D)". 

(c) Definitions.— Section 72(t) is amended 
by adding at the end thereof the following 
new paragraphs: 

••(6) Qualified first-time homebuyer dis- 
tributions.— For purposes of paragraph 
(2)(D)(i>— 

"(A) In geneR-AL.- The term qualified 
first-time homebuyer distribution" means 
any payment or distribution received by an 
individual to the extent such payment or dis- 
tribution is used by the individual before the 
close of the 60th day after the day on which 
such payment or distribution is received to 
pay qualified acquisition costs with respect 
to a principal residence of a first-time home- 
buyer who is such individual or the spouse, 
child, or grandchild of such individual. 

"(B) Qualified AC(iUisiTiON costs.— For 
purposes of this paragraph, the term -quali- 
fied acquisition costs' means the costs of ac- 
quiring, constructing, or reconstructiiig a 
residence. Such term includes any usual or 
reasonable settlement, financing, or other 
closing costs. 

••(C) First-ti.me homebuyer; other defini- 
tions.— For purposes of this paragraph- 


••(i) First-time homebuyer.— The term 
•first-time homebuyer" means any individual 
if— 

■■(I) such individual (and if married, such 
individuars spouse) had no present owner- 
ship interest in a principal residence during 
the 3-year period ending on the date of acqui- 
sition of the principal residence to which 
this paragraph applies, and 

••(II) subsection (a)(6), (h). or (k) of section 
1034 did not suspend the running of any pe- 
riod of time specified in section 1034 with re- 
spect to such individual on the day before 
the date the distribution is applied pursuant 
to subparagraph (A). 

■■(ii) Principal residence.— The term 
■principal residence" has the same meaning 
as when used in section 1034. 

■■(iii) D.-vte of acquisition.— The term 'date 
of acquisition" means the date— 

■■(I) on which a binding contract to acquire 
the principal residence to which subpara- 
graph (A) applies is entered into, or 

■■(II) on which construction or reconstruc- 
tion of such a principal residence is com- 
menced. 

■■(D) Special rule where delay in accjuisi- 
TION.— If any distribution from any individ- 
ual retirement plan fails to meet the re- 
quirements of subparagraph (A) solely by 
reason of a delay or cancellation of the pur- 
chase or construction of the residence, the 
amount of the distribution may be 'contrib- 
uted to an individual retirement plan as pro- 
vided in section 408(d)(3)(A)(i) (determined by 
substituting 120 days' for 60 days' in such 
section), except that — 

•(i) section 408(d)(3)(B) shall not be applied 
to such contribution, and 

■■(ii) such amount shall not be taken into 
account in determining whether section 
408(d)(3)(A)(i) applies to any other amount. 

••(7) .Qualified higher education ex- 
penses.— For purposes of paragraph 
(2)(D)(ii>— 

■■(A) In GENERAL.— The term ■qualified 
higher education expenses' means tuition, 
feep. books, supplies, and equipment required 
for the enrollment or attendance of— 

■■(i) the taxpayer. 

••(ii) the taxpayer's spouse, or 

•■(iii) the taxpayer's child (as defined in 
section 151(c)(3)) or grandchild, 
at an eligible educational institution (as de- 
fined in section 135(c)(3)). 

••(B) COORDINATION WITH SAVINGS BOND PRO- 
VISIONS.— The amount of qualified higher 
education expenses for any taxable year 
shall be reduced by any amount excludable 
from gross income under section 135. '• 

(d) PENALTY-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR CER- 
TAIN Une.mployed Individuals.— Paragraph 
(2) of section 72(t) is amended by adding at 
the end thereof the following new subpara- 
graph: 

■■(E) Distributions to unemployed indi- 
viduals.— A distribution from an individual 
retirement plan (other than a plan referred 
to in subclause (I) or (II) of paragraph 
(6)(A)(iii)) to an individual after separation 
from employment, if— 

••(i) such individual has received unem- 
ployment compensation for 12 consecutive 
weeks under any Federal or State unemploy- 
ment compensation law by reason of such 
separation, and 

••(ii) such distributions are made during 
any taxable year during which such unem- 
ployment compensation is paid or the suc- 
ceeding taxable year. 

To the extent provided in regulations, a self- 
employed individual shall be treated as 
meeting the requirements of clause (i) if, 
under Federal or State unemployment com- 


pensation, the individual would have re- 
ceived unemployment compensation for 12 
consecutive weeks but for the fact the indi- 
vidual was self-employed." 

(e) Special Rule for Certain Disaster 
Victims.— For purposes of section 72(t)(6) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1966. an indi- 
vidual whose principal residence was de- 
stroyed or substantially damaged by Hurri- 
cane Andrew, Hurricane Iniki, or Typhoon 
Omar shall be treated as a first-time home- 
buyer with respect to such residence if the 
individual rebuilds it or with respect to any 
other principal residence acquired to replace 
such residence. 

(f) Conforming amendments.- 

(1) Section 401(k)(2)(B)(i) is amended by 
striking "or"" at the. end of subclause (III), by 
striking "and" at the end of subclause (IV) 
and inserting "or", and by inserting after 
subclause (IV) the following new subclause: 

•■(V) the date on which qualified first-time 
homebuyer distributions (as defined in sec- 
tion 72(t)(6)) or distributions for qualified 
higher education expenses (as defined in sec- 
tion 72(t)(7)) are made. and". 

(2) Section 403(b)(ll) is amended by strik- 
ing •or" at the end of subparagraph (A), by 
striking the period at the end of subpara- 
graph (B) and inserting ". or"", and by insert- 
ing after subparagraph (B) the following new 
subparagraph: 

■(C) for qualified first-time homebuyer dis- 
tributions (as defined in section 72(t)(6)) or 
for the payment of qualified higher edu- 
cation expenses (as defined in section 
72(t)(7))."" 

(g) EFFECTIVE Date.— The amendments 
made by this section shall apply to payments 
and distributions after December 31. 1993. 

SEC. 142. CONTRIBUTIONS MUST BE HELD AT 
LEAST 5 YEARS LN CERTAIN CASES. 

(a) In General.— Section 72(t). as amended 

by section 131(b). is amended by adding at 

the end thereof the following new paragraph: 

"(9) Certain contributions must be held 5 

YEARS.— 

■■(A) In GENERAL.— Paragraph (2)(A)(i) shall 
not appl.y to any amount distributed out of 
an individual retirement plan (other than an 
individual retirement plus account) which is 
allocable to contributions made to the plan 
during the 5-year period ending on the date 
of such distribution (and earnings on such 
contributions). 

••(B) Ordering rule —For purposes of this 
paragraph, distributions shall be treated as 
having been made — 

••(i) -first from the earliest contribution 
(and earnings allocable thereto) remaining 
in the account at the time of the distribu- 
tion, and 

••(ii) then from other contributions (^nd 
earnings allocable thereto) in the order in 
which made. 

Earnings shall be allocated to contributions 
in such manner as the Secretary may pre- 
scribe. 

■■(C) Special rule for rollovers.— 

•■(i) Pension plans.— Subparagraph (A) 
shall not apply to distributions out of an in- 
dividual retirement plan which are allocable 
to rollover contributions to which section 
402(c). 403(a)(4). or 403(b)(8) applied. 

■•(ii) Contribution period.— For purposes 
of subparagraph (A), amounts shall be treat- 
ed as having been held by a plan during any 
period such contributions were held (or are 
treated as held under this clause) by any in- 
dividual retirement plan from which trans- 
ferred. 

••(D) Plus accounts.— For rules applicable 
to individual retirement plus accounts under 
section 408A. see paragraph (8) " 


12038 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12039 


(b) Effective Date.— The amendment 
made by this section shall apply to contribu- 
tions (and earnings allocable thereto) which 
are made after the date of the enactment of 
this Act. 

Subtitle D — Incentives for Private Businesses 
To Hire New Employees 

SEC. 151. REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT FOR HIRING 
NEW EMPLOYEES. 

(a) In General.— Subpart C of part IV of 
subchapter A of chapter 1 (relating to re- 
fundable credits) is amended by redesignat- 
ing section 35 as section 36 and by inserting 
after section 34 the following new section: 

"SEC. 38. EMPLOYMENT TAXES ON NEW EMPLOY- 
EES. 

"(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.— There shall be 
allowed as a credit against the tax imposed 
by this subtitle for the taxable year an 
amount equal to the employment taxes paid 
on the qualified wages of eligible new em- 
ployees of the employer. 

•(b) Eligible New Employees.- For pur- 
poses of this section- 
ed) In general.— The term 'eligible new 
employee' means, with respect to any em- 
ployer, an employee who first begins worlc 
for the employer during the period beginning 
July 1. 1993. and ending June 30. 1994. and 

"(2) Replacement employees not count- 
ed.— 

"(A) In general.— The number of employ- 
ees treated as eligible new employees for any 
payroll period shall not exceed the excess (if 
any) of— 

"(i) the number of full-time Employees of 
the employer during the payroll period, over 

"(ii) the average number of full-time em- 
ployees of the employer during the 12-month 
period ending on June 30. 1993. 

"(B) Ordering rule.— If subparagraph (A) 
results in a reduction in the number of em- 
ployees who may be treated as eligible new 
employees for any payroll period, such re- 
duction shall come from employees with the 
highest wages for such period. 

"(c) Employme.nt Taxes; Wages.— For pur- 
poses of this section— 

"(1) Employ.me.nt taxes.— The term em- 
ployment taxes' means — 

"(A) the amount of the taxes imposed by 
subsections (a) and (b) of section 3111 (relat- 
ing to Social Security taxes). 

"(B) the amount of the taxes imposed by 
section 3221 (relating to tier 1 railroad retire- 
ment taxes), and 

"(C) the tax imposed by section 3301 (relat- 
ing to unemployment taxes). 

"(2) Qualified wages.— 

"(A) In general.— The term qualified 
wages' means, with respect to any employee, 
wages paid or incurred by the employer 
which are attributable to services rendered 
by the employee during the 6-month period 
beginning with the day the employee begins 
work for the employer. Such term shall not 
include wages treated as qualified first-year 
wages under section 51. 

"(B) Wages.— The term 'wages' means any 
wages with respect to which employment 
taxes are required to be paid. 

"(d) Special Rules.— Rules similar to the 
rules of subsections (f), (h), (i). and (k) of sec- 
tion 51 and the rules of section 52 shall apply 
for purpjoses of this section." 

(b) Coordination With Refund Provi- 
sion.— For purposes of section 1324(b)(2) of 
title 31 of the United States Code, section 35 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be 
considered to be a credit provision of the In- 
ternal Revenue Code of 1954 enacted before 
January 1. 1978. 

(c) Conforming Amendments.— d) Sub- 
paragraph (A) of section 51(iMl) is amended 


by inserting ". or. if the taxpayer is an en- 
tity other than a corporation, to any individ- 
ual who owns, directly or indirectly, more 
than 50 percent of the capital and profits in- 
terests in the entity," after "of the corpora- 
tion". 

(2) The table of sections for subpart C of 
part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is 
amended by striking the item relating to 
section 35 and inserting the following new 
items: 

"Sec. 35. Employment taxes on new employ- 
ees. 
"Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax." 

(d) Effective D.\te.— The amendments 
made by this section shall apply to taxable 
years ending after the date of the enactment 
of this Act. 

SEC. 152. REPEAL OF LUXXJRY EXCISE TAXES. 

(a) In General.— Chapter 31 (relating to re- 
tail excise taxes) is amended by striking sub- 
chapter A and by redesignating subchapters 
B and C as subchapters A and B, respec- 
tively. 

(b) CONFOR-MING AMEND.MENTS.— 

(1) The material preceding paragraph (1) of 
section 4221(a) is amended by striking "sub- 
chapter A or C of chapter 31" and inserting 
"section 4051". 

(2) Subsection (») of section 4221 is amend- 
ed by striking the last sentence. 

(3^ Subsection (c) of section 4221 is amend- 
ed by striking "section 4001(c). 4002(b), 
4003(c). 4004(a). or 4053(a)(6)" and inserting 
"section 4053(a)(6) ". 

(4) Paragraph (1) of section 4221(d) is 
amended by striking "taxes imposed by sub- 
chapter A or C of chapter 31" and inserting 
"the tax imposed by section 4051 '. 

(5) Subsection (d) of section 4222 is amend- 
ed by striking "sections 4001(c), 4002(b). 
4003(c). 4004(a), 4053(a)(6)" and inserting "sec- 
tions 4053(a)(6) ". 

(6) Section 4293 is amended by striking 
"subchapter A of chapter 31.". 

(7) The table of subchapters for chapter 31 
is amended to read as follows: 

"Subchapter A. Special fuels. 
"Subchapter B. Heavy trucks and trailers." 

(C) EXE.MPTION from LUXURY EXCISE TAX 
FOR CERTAIN EQUIPME.NT INSTALLED ON PAS- 
SENGER VEHICLES FOR USE BY DI.SABLED INDI- 
VIDUALS.— 

(1) In GENERAL —Paragraph (3) of section 
4004(b) (relating to separate purchase of arti- 
cle and parts and accessories therefor), as in 
effect on the day before the date of the en- 
actment of this Act, is amended— 

(A) by striking "or" at the end of subpara- 
graph (A). 

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as 
subparagraph (C), 

(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the 
following new subparagraph: 

"(B) the part or accessory is installed on a 
passenger vehicle to enable or assist an indi- 
vidual with a disability to operate the vehi- 
cle, or to enter or exit the vehicle, by com- 
pensating for the effect of such disability, 
or", and 

(D) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the 
following flush sentence: 

"The price of any part or accessory (and its 
installation) to which paragraph (1) does not 
apply by reason of this paragraph shall not 
be taken into account under paragraph 
(2)(A)." 

(2) Effective date.— The amendments 
made by this subsection shall take effect as 
if included in the amendments made by sec- 
tion 11221(a) of the Omnibus Budget Rec- 
onciliation Act of 1990. 


(3) Period for filing claims —If refund or 
credit of any overpayment of tax resulting 
from the application of the amendments 
made by this subsection is prevented at any 
time before the close of the 1-year period be- 
ginning on the date of the enactment of this 
Act by the operation of any law or rule of 
law (including res judicata), refund or credit 
of such overpayment (to the extent attrib- 
utable to such amendments) may. neverthe- 
less, be made or allowed if claim therefore is 
filed before the close of such 1-year period. 

(d) Effective Date —Except as provided in 
subsection (c)(2). the amendments made by 
this section shall take effect on January 1. 
1993. 

SEC. 153. APPLICATION OF PASSIVE LOSS RULES 
TO RENTAL REAL ESTATE ACTTVl- 
TIE& 

(a) Rental Real Estate Acttivities of 
Persons in Real Property Business Not 
Autom.\tically Treated as Passive Activi- 
ties.— Subsection (c) of section 469 (defining 
passive activity) is amended tty adding^at the 
end thereof the following new" paragraph: 

"(7) Special rules for taj^payers in real 

PROPERTY business.— 

"(A) In general.— If this paragraph applies 
to any taxpayer for a taxable year — 

"(i) paragraph (2) shall not apply to any 
rental real estate activity of such taxpayer 
for such taxable year, and 

"(ii) this section shall be applied as if each 
interest of the taxpayer in rental real estate 
were a separate activity. 
Notwithstanding clause (ii), a taxpayer may 
elect to treat all interests in rental real es- 
tate as 1 activity. Nothing in the preceding 
provisions of this subparagraph shall be con- 
strued as affecting the determination of 
whether the taxpayer materially partici- 
pates with respect to any interest in a lim- 
ited partnership as a limited partner. 

"(B) Taxpayers to who.m paragraph ap- 
plies.— This paragraph shall apply to a tax- 
payer for a taxable year if more than one- 
half of the personal services performed in 
trades or businesses by the taxpayer during 
such taxable year are performed in real prop- 
el ty trades or businesses in which the tax- 
payer materially participatesJ 

"(C) Real property tradeIor business.— 
For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
real property trade or business' means any 
real property development, redevelopment, 
construction, reconstruction, acquisition, 
conversion, rental, operation, management, 
leasing, or brokerage trade or business. 

"(D) Special rules for subparagraph 

(BI.— 

"(i) Closely held c corporations.— In the 
case of a closely held C corporation, the re- 
quirements of subparagraph. (B) shall be 
treated as met for any taxable year if more 
than 50 percent of the gross receipts of such 
corporation for such taxable year are derived 
from real property trades or businesses in 
which the corporation materially partici- 
pates. 1 

" (ii) Personal services as Xn employee.— 
For purposes of subparagraph (B). personal 
services performed as 4n employee shall not 
be treated as performed in real property 
trades or businesses. The preceding sentence 
shall not apply if such empl()yee is a 5-per- 
cent owner (as defined in section 416(i)(l)(B)) 
in the employer." | 

(b) Conforming Amend.ments.— 

(1) Paragraph (2) of section 469(c) is amend- 
ed by striking "The" and inserting "Except 
as provided in paragraph (7), the". 

(2) Clause (iv) of section 469(i)(3)(E) is 
amended by inserting "or any loss allowable 
by reason of subsection (c)(7)'' after "loss". 


(c) Effective Date.— The amendments 
made by this section shall apply to taxable 
years beginning after December 31. 1992. 
TITLE II— DEFICIT REDUCTIONS 
Subtitle A — Extension of the Caps on 
Discretionary Spending 
SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF THE CAPS. 

(a) FISCAL Year 1993 -For fiscal year 1993. 
the discretionary spending limits established 
in section 601(a)(2) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 as in effect on the date of 
enactment of this Act for the three cat- 
egories for such fiscal year shall be reduced 
by an aggregate amount of $1,200,000,000. 
with each individual category being reduced 
by the amount of savings in such category 
resulting from the enactment of section 211. 

(b) Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995— The over- 
all discretionary spending limits established 
in section ^601(a)(2) of the Congressional 
Budget A'«'of 1974 for fiscal years 1994 and 
1995 as in effect on the date of enactment of 
this Act are re4^iced by — 

(1) $3,991,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
1994; and 

(2) $7,135,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
1995. 

(c) Fiscal Ye.'VRS 1996. 1997. and 1998 — 

(1) IN GENERAL— For fiscal years 1996. 1997. 
and 1998. there shall be caps on discretionary 
spending as provided in section 601(a)(2) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for fis- 
cal years 1994 and 1995, subject to the provi- 
sions of paragraphs (2) and (3). 

(2) Level ok li.mits.— The discretionary 
limits on new budget authority and outlays 
for fiscal years 1996. 1997, and 1998 shall be— 

(A) the levels assumed in H. Con. Res. 64. 
agreed to March 31. 1993, for such fiscal 
years, reduced by 

(B)(i) $8,001,000,000. in outlays for fiscal 
year 19%; 

(ii) $9,022,000,000. in outlays for fiscal year 
1997; and 

(iii) $9,843,000,000. in outlays for fiscal year 
1998. 

(3) Extension of law.— The provisions of 
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 and the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 relating to the enforce- 
ment of the discretionary spending limit for 
fiscal years 1994 and 1995 are extended 
through fiscal year 1998 for the purpose of 
enforcing the limits set forth in this sub- 
section. 

Subtitle B— Spending Cuts . 
SEC. 211. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. 

(a) In General.— Of the amounts provided 
in previous fiscal year 1993 appropriations 
Acts and available budget authority under 
previous appropriations Acts, such amounts 
of budgetary resources are rescinded so as to 
equal $1,200,000,000 in outlays as provided in 
subsections (b) and (c). 

(b) 0MB Reductions.— 

(1) In general.— The Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget shall make uni- 
form percentage reductions in budget au- 
thority in Federal agency administrative ex- 
penses, except that no reduction shall be 
made in current rates of pay under current 
law. 

(2) No APPROPRiA-noNS ACT.— To the extent 
budgetary resources are not provided in ap- 
propriations Acts, the Director shall make 
the same uniform percentage reduction as 
required in paragraph (1) in Federal adminis- 
trative expanses as determined in section 
256(h) of the Balanced Budget and Emer- 
gency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 

(c) Definition.— For the purposes of this 
section. Federal agency administrative ex- 
penses are defined as object classes 10 (ex- 


cluding object classes 12.1. 12.2, and 13.0), 20 
(excluding object class 23.1). and 30. 

SEC. 212. PERMANENT ELIMINATION OF THE AL. 
TER.NATIVE-FORM-OF-AN'NXITY OP- 
• TION EXCEPT FOR INDIVTDUALS 
WITH A CRITICAL .MEDICAL CONDI- 
TION. 

(a) Civil Service Retireme.nt System; 
Federal Employees' Retirement Syste.m — 
Sections 8343a and 8420a of title 5. United 
States Code, are each amended— 

(1) in subsection (a) by striking "an em- 
ployee or Member may," and inserting "any 
employee or Member who has a life-threaten- 
ing affliction or other critical medical condi- 
tion may,"; and 

(2) by striking subsection (f). 

(b) Foreign Service Retirement and Dis- 
ability Sy.stem.— Section 807(e)(1) of the 
Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 
4047(e)(l)f is amended by striking "a partici- 
pant may," and in.serting "any participant 
who has a life-threatening affliction or other 
critical medical condition may.". 

(c) Central Intelligence agency Retire- 
ment and Disability System.— Section 
294(a) of the Central Intelligence Agency Re- 
tirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2143(a)). as set forth 
in section 802 of the CIARDS Technical Cor- 
rections Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-496; 106 
Stat. 3196). is amended by striking "a partic- 
ipant may," and inserting 'any participant 
who has a life-threatening affliction or other 
critical medical condition may.". 

(d) Effective D.i^TE.- The amendments 
made by this section shall become effective 
on January 1. 1994. and shall apply with re- 
spect to any annuity commencing on or after 
that date, 

SEC. 213. GROUP HEALTH PLAN INFOR-MA-nON 
REPORTING. 

(a) In General.— Subsection (a) of section 
6051 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (re- 
lating to receipts for employees) is amend- 
ed— 

(1) by striking "and" at the end of para- 
graph (8). 

(2) by striking the period at the end of 
paragraph (9» and inserting ". and", and 

(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the fol- 
lowing new paragraph: 

"(10) whether a group health plan (as de- 
fined in section 6103(l)(12)(E)(ii) is available 
to the employee and the plan coverage (sin- 
gle or family) elected by such employee (if 
any).". 

(b) Disclosure of Inform.'vtion.— Para- 
graph (12) of section 6103(1) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to disclosure 
of returns and return information for pur- 
poses other than tax administration) is 
amended — 

(1) by striking "the Administrator of the 
Health Care Financing Administration, dis- 
close to the Administrator" in subparagraph 
(B) and inserting "the applicable official, 
disclose to such official". 

(2) by adding at the end of subparagraph 
(B) the following new clause: 

"(iv) With respect to each such medicare 
beneficiary and spouse (if any), the group 
health plan information required under sec- 
tion 6051(a)(10).". 

(3) by striking the matter preceding clause 
(i) of subparagraph (C) and inserting the fol- 
lowing: 

"(C) Disclosure by official.— With re- 
spect to the information disclosed under sub- 
paragraph (B), the applicable official may 
disclose—", 

(4) by striking "as having received wages 
from the employer" in subparagraph (C)(i), 

(5) by striking "such Administrator" each 
place it appears in subparagraph (CKiii) and 
inserting "such official". 


(6) by striking clause (iii) of subparagraph 
(E), and inserting the following new clause: 

"(iii) .i^pplicable (;jfficial.— The term ap- 
plicable official" meahs— 

"I I) the Administrator of the Health Care 
Financing Administration, 
"(II) the Secretary of Defense, 
"(III) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
and ( 

"(IV) the Director of the Office of person- 
nel Management."". 

(7) by striking "qualified employer" each 
place it appears and^nserting "employer". 

(8) by striking subparagraph (F), and 

(9) by inserting "and group health plan'" 
in the heading thereof. 

(c) Data Bank.— Paragraph (5) of section 
1862(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395y(b)) is amended by adding at the end 
thereof the following new subparagraph: 

"(F) Medicare secondary payer data 
BANK. — The Secretary shall collect and store 
in a data bank established for purposes of 
this subsection the information provided to 
the Secretary by entities as described in this 
paragraph along with such further informa- 
tion on medicare secondary payer situations 
as the Secretary deems appropriate not later 
than July 1. 1994."". 

(d) Conforming A.mendments. -Paragraph 
(5) of section 1862(b) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)) is amended— 

(1) by striking "a qualified employer (as 
defined in section 6103(l)(12)(D)iiii) of such 
Code)" in subparagraph (C)(i) and inserting 
"an employer", and 

(2) by striking clause (iii) of subparagraph 
(C). 

(e) Effective Date.— The amendments 
made by this section shall apply to taxable 
years beginning after December 31. 1992. 
SEC. 214. ADDITIONAL SPEN"DING REDUCTIONS. 

It is the sense of the Congress that the re- 
ductions in discretionary spending as set 
forth in section 201 of this Act shall be 
achieved by — 

(1) reducing Federal aid for mass transit: 

(2) eliminating highway demonstration 
programs; 

(3) modifying the Secvice Contact Act by 
eliminating the successorship provision; 

(4) reducing Federal employment by 150.000 
employees; 

(5) reducing Federal Government adminis- 
trative expenses; 

(6) modifying vacation leave for Federal 
managers; 

(7) reducing legislative branch administra- 
tive expenses; 

(8) eliminating the Interstate Commerce 
Commission; 

(9) closing and privatizing the Federal He- 
lium Reserve; 

(10) reducing Legal Services funding by 50 
per cent; 

(11) terminating the Copyright Royalty 
Commission; and 

(12) reducing funding for the European 
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 
the Special Defense Acquisition Fund, and 
freezing funding for International Develop- 
ment Authority. 

Job creation plan— paid for in full 
Job creation incentives: 


Jobs created 
by 1998 

250.000 


Index capital gains (prospec- 
tively for all assets) 

Increase expensing deduction 
under §179 to 525.000 from 
$10,000 150,000 

Bentsen-Roth super IRA and 
I)enalty-free early withdraw- 
als 250.000 


\ 


12040 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 28, 1993 

Jobs created ment used in determining alternative mini- Current law only those taxpayers who are 

by 1998 mum taxable income. Under the new AMT not covered by any other pension arrange- 

Alternative minimum tax adjustment, taxpayers would use the ADS ment and whose income does not exceed 

changes 30.000 ijfe expectancy as they do under current law. $25,000 for single filers and $40,000 for married 

13.85 percent income tax credit 50.000 however, the rate of depreciation would be filers are eligible for a fully deductible IRA. 

Passive loss rule changes 40.000 ^he same as the rate for regular tax pur- The $2,000 contribution limit win be in- 

Repeal luxury excise taxes 30.000 poses. dexed for inOation in $500 increments in the 

Eliminating the ACE adjustment will still year in which the indexed amount exceeds 
Total jobs created by 1998 ... 800.000 insure that taxpayers with substantial eco- the next $500 increase. The non-working 
NOTE.— Estimates prepared by the Minority Staff nomic income will continue to pay taxes, spouse limit of $250 is indexed by the same 
of the Joint Economic Committee. while also eliminating a redundant penalty $500 amount in the same years. 
Re.'^l Jobs FOR AMERIC.^— Description OF on capital investment. In addition, the AMT No longer will a spouse be ■deemed" to 
T.\x Provisions depreciation system would be changed to re- have a pension plan because their husband or 
REDUCE THE COST OF C.APIT.\L .\ND T.^x fleet more realistic economic effects from .wife has one. If the individual does not have 
PENALTIES on INVESTMENT the purchase of business assets. An across a pension plan at work, regardless of their 
/ Indexing for Capital Gains ^^^ board adjustment would apply to depre- income level, they will qualify for an IRA to 
_ . . _ . ciation on all assets so all taxpayers receive the extent of their •earned income." 
Fairness m the Tax Laws similar benefits without favoring some tax- Limits on IRAs ($2,000) are coordinated 
Under current law. a taxpayers basis in his payers more than others, as the Administra- with the limits on 401(k) plans. 403<b) plans, 
assets for purposes of determining his capital tion's proposal does. SEPs and section 501(0(18) plans. For exam- 
gains tax is determined by historical costs of encourage investment in small business P'^' ''^ someone contributes $7,000 to a 401(k) 
the asset. However, a taxpayer can have ■> i si7ac n w » plan, then their IRA contribution is limited 
gains for tax purposes even though the real ''• '"crease m ji/y tipensing ueauction ^^ ^^j^ ^^ jggj because the 401(k) limit is 
value of the assets (i.e. adjusted for inHa- Increase From $10,000 to $25,000 for equal to $8,728. 
tlon) has not increased. Depreciable Assets The provision would be effective beginning 

Because it is unfair to tax inflation, the Current law reflects the reality that assets January 1, 1996. 

proposal provides for inflation adjustments depreciate more quickly during early years. New Kind of IRA Option 

to a taxpayer's basis for purposes of deter- more slowly in later years. It also reflects Taxpayers will be offered a new choice of 

mining gain on the disposition of assets held the attempt to correct a misallocation of jj^^ Under this new IRA contributions will 

more than one year. capital caused by inHation. However, these ^^^ y,^ deductible, but if the assets remain in 

Assets Covered current depreciation rates are only appro- ^^^ account for at least 5 years, all income 

The proposal would provide for an inHation ^^'f ^,fP//i^!" '^i'tl^lir!!*^^^^^^^^^ mr .r^.u **" ^^ "^^^ ^''^^ "'*^^" "^ '^ withdrawn. A 10% 

adjustment to the basis of assets held for k„'" °"ip' '° TnvT^in nl^^^^^^^^^^ P^"*'^^ *'" ^PP'^ ^° ^^-^'^ withdrawals, un- 

more than one year, including corporate tnT.T.lr rhilTon.l^i hrTnJ^ rh.^PnL^f '««« ^^ey meet one of the four exceptions 

stock, homes and tangible property which equipment this proposal brings the deprecia- outlined below under number 5. 

are capital assets used in a trade or business ^'^ <l«1"f' °" ^'i'oser to reality by allowing Taxpayers can contribute up to $2,000 to ei- 

owned bv individuals • * '*'^^'' '•^'^"ction in the first year, when ^^er a traditional IRA. or the new IRA. They 

The adjustment applies to assets kold after "^^xhlc^n^^nnL^i'^w.^lfn TnVro!=T?K„ . ,.„„, ^*" *'«« allocate any portion of the $2,000 

January 1. 1993. and indexing applies on a ul'lZT^^lZT.tT-J^^^^^^^ '*""*' '" '^'^ '*""^^'"'"' accounts (e.g. $1,000 to 

prospective basis both to assets currently '* amount that can be deducted in the first ^ traditional IRA and $1,000 to the new IRA). 

liiusi«<.uve udsis, uoin to asseis currently year that an asset is placed in service. Under . „ „ „ ,„ . „• ,^w , . , . - 

owned and those purchased m the future. ^^^^^^^ ,^^ ^ maximum deduction of $10,000 ^- Penalty-Free IRAiUtndrauals for Important 

Assets excluded froni the indexing proposal ^^ ^,1^^^^ ^^^^ ^„^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ .^ ^^. Purposes 

would include collectibles, debt warrants op- duced dollar for dollar where the taxpayer The 10% penalty on early withdrawals 

tions and depreciable assets of a C corpora- p,^^gg j„ ^^^.^j^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ $200,000 of depre- < those before age 59" . or 5 years for the new 

tion. ciable business property (not real estate). I^^A) will be waived if the funds are used to 

Amount of the Adjustment Thus, the rule is intended to benefit only ^^y * ^rst home, to pay educational ex- 

The adjustment is based on the increase in small businesses. The deduction is further Penses. to cover catastrophic health care 

the consumer price index (CPI) between the limited to the amount of taxable income of <^osts or during periods of unemployment 

calendar yeajr prior to the year in which the the business., however, if the $10,000 deduc- after collecting 12 weeks or more of unem- 

asset was acquired and the year prior to the tion is denied because of this rule, then it Ployment compensation. Taxpayers will still 

year in which the disposition takes place. can be carried over to a later year when tax- ^^ liable for the income tax due on the with- 

2 Cost Recovery Imnroved Under Alternative able income is available. Limitations apply drawal. but n() penalty will apply. 

2. cost Recovery improved under Alternatne ^^^ automobiles and -listed property" (like Parents and grandparents can make pen- 

^^^ ^^^^^^ under current law alty-free withdrawals for college or home ex- 
Current AMT Penalty is Redundant & r> , „ . ^r^ .• , . penscs of a Child Or grandchild. Children and 
Penalizes Investment Determination of Depreciation Amount grandchildren can make penalty-free with- 
Under current law. many capital intensive Under the proposal, the amount that could drawals for health costs in excess of 7''2 per- 
taxpayers are penalized twice under the al- ^^ expensed in any one year would be in- cent of the income of their parents and 
ternative minimum tax by the depreciation creased to $25,000 indexed annually for infla- grandparents. An individual wanting to go 
adjustment under that system. Under the ^ion, from the current $10,000 amount. back to school after being in the work force 
Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System depreciable basis of asset(s) that are could use the IRA to save for anticipated 
(MACRS) a 200% declining balance method expensed would be reduced by the amount of education or retaining expenses. The with- 
over recovery periods shorter than the as- ^^^ expense election, up to $25,000. and the drawals rules apply across generations and 
set's class life is generally allowed. But in remaining basis would be depreciated over between spouses. 

computing the AMT. the recovery system is ^^xhf'!^^^!!!=i!.i'^^«'!f,H^K,f!^fi;,i,.<. r^.. ,==<.^. Penalty-Free 401(k) and 403(b) Withdrawals 
foH.ir.aH tr. 1 lui"/ Hor.1 i r.ir,rr K.>i.>.^r.a «,,„^ »»,„ The provisioH would be effective for assets 

reduced to 150 4 declining balance over the D„rcha5ed after Tulv 1 IWI Similar penalty-free withdrawal rules will 

asset class lives. And. under a second adjust- ^ ^na^eu aiier ouiy i i^6. ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ employer sponsored 

ment. called the adjusted current earnings Support for the Legislation p,^^^ ^^^ purposes of first home, education or 

(ACE) adjustment, depreciation is computed Treasury proposed this as part of their unemployment costs. Penaltv-free withdraw- 

using the straight-line (100%) method over "small business" package of tax incentives als are already allowed for medical expenses 

the class life of the property. last year. for these plans 

Because the current system penalizes cap- Senator Dole and Congressman Michel in- Section 401(k) and 403(b) plans are em- 
ital intensive businesses not once, but twice, troduced this as part of their small business ployer-provided retirement plans that allow 
it is a severe disincentive to capital invest- package earlier this year (S. 160). employees to make tax-free contributions 
ment and consequently, job creation. Its bad Small business is an enthusiastic supporter out of their paychecks. Under current law. 
economic effects are magnified for growing of this proposal, and NFIB has been a leader once an employee makes a contribution to a 
capital intensive businesses, and for start up in supporting it's enactment. 401(k) and 403(b) plan, withdrawals are gen- 
businesses or ones with depressed earnings. reduce the tax bias against savings erally subject to a 10% penalty tax like that 
New Cost Recovery System for Future through individual retirement accounts applied to early withdrawals from IRAs. 
Purchases of Assets 4. Make Deductible IRAs Available to All Support for the Legislation 

This proposal would eliminate the ACE ad- Americans in the Senate, S. 612. the Bentsen-Roth 

justment for assets purchased after July 1, Under the bill, all Americans would once Super IRA ad 78 cosponsors; 48 Democrats 

1993, and modify the current AMT adjust- again be eligible for fully deductible IRAs. and 30 Republicans, in the 102d Congress. 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12041 


In the House, the companion bill. HR 1406, 
had 269 co-sponsors: 141 Democrats and 128 
Republicans, in the 102d Congress. 

The legislation was enacted twice in 1992. 
and vetoed both times for other reasons. 
encourage private businesses to hire new- 
employees 
6. 13.85 Percent Jobs Hiring Tax Credit 
Determination of the Credit 

While the economy is improving, employ- 
ers are not hiring enough new workers. This 
"new jobs" credit would give the private sec- 
tor an incentive to hire new workers now. as 
opposed to increasing overtime or hiring 
temporary workers from other sources. 

This temporary credit wpuld give employ- 
ers a tax credit equal to 13.85 percent of a 
new employee's wages for the first six 
months of employment. This credit would 
apply against the applicable wage base for 
FUTA and FICA taxes. 

The amount of 13.85 percent is equal to the 
employer's FICA tax of 7.65 percent plus 
FUTA tax of 6.2 percent. The actual FICA 
and FUTA taxes would not be reduced, but 
the proposed income tax credit would return 
to the employer the out-of-pocket cost of 
those taxes on labor. Also, as a result, this 
change would not affect the social security 
or unemployment trust funds. 

The credit would be available for any em- 
ployee hired during the period from July 1. 
1993 to July 1. 1994. This will provide employ- 
ers enough of a phase-in period to take ad- 
vantage of the full credit. 

Employers would receive a credit only to 
the extent there was actually a net increase 
in employees in a given pay period. The eli- 
gibility for the credit would be determined 
over each payroll period of the employer. Ap- 
propriate anti-abuse rules would apply. 

The tax credit would directly affect em- 
ployers' decisions to hire labor because the 
credit would reduce the price of labor, with- 
out reducing wages or workers' legal bene- 
fits. If jobs are not created, there will be no 
cost to the government. 

repeal of the luxury excise taxes 
Current Law 

Present law imposes a ten percent excise 
tax on the portion of the retail price of the 
following items that exceeds the thresholds 
specified: automobiles above $30,000: boats 
above $100,000; aircraft above $250,000: jew- 
elry above $10,000: and furs above $10,000. The 
tax took effect on January 1, 1991, and ex- 
pires on December 31, 1999. 
Proposal 

This proposal would repeal the luxury ex- 
cise tax on boats, airplanes, jewelry, furs and 
automobiles, effective retroactively to Janu- 
ary 1, 1993. 

8. Modify Passive Loss Rules for Real Estate 
Present Law 

Under current tax rules, deductions and 
credits from passive trade or business activi- 
ties are limited to the extent they exceed in- 
come from passive activities. They can not 
be used to offset other income, such as 
wages, portfolio income, or business income 
that is not derived from a passive activity. 
Credits are treated similarly. 

Deductions and credits suspended under 
these rules are carried forward to the next 
taxable year, and are allowed in full when 
the taxpayer disposes of his entire interest 
in the passive activity to an unrelated per- 
son. 

Passive activities are defined as trade or 
business activities in which the. taxpayer 
does not "materially participate." Rental 


activities (including rental real estate ac- 
tivities) are also treated as passive activi- 
ties, regardless of the level of the taxpayer's 
participation. However, rental real estate ac- 
tivities can be deducted against other in- 
come, up to $25,000 a year, which is phased 
out by one dollar for every two dollars of 
AGI over $100,000 (i.e. $100,000 to $150,000 
phase-out). 

Proposed Change 

Under the proposal, a taxpayer's rental ac- 
tivities would not be subject to the passive 
loss limitation if the taxpayer meets eligi- 
bility requirements relating to real property 
trades or businesses in which the taxpayer 
performs services, i.e. "materially partici- 
pates." Thus, the same rules would apply to 
rental real estate as apply to other indus- 
tries. Rental real estate activities would no 
longer be per se considered "passive." 

Real property trade or business means any 
real property development, redevelopment, 
construction, reconstruction, acquisition, 
conversion, rental, operation, management, 
leasing, or brokerage trade or business. 

An individual meets the eligibility require- 
ments if more than half of the personal serv- 
ices the taxpayer performs in a trade or busi- 
ness are in real property trades or businesses 
in which he materially participates. Pei^ 
sonal services performed as an employee are 
not treated as performed in a real estate 
trade or business unless the person perform- 
ing the services has more than a five-percent 
ownership interest in the employer. 

A closely held C corporation meets the eli- 
gibility requirements if more than 50 percent 
of its gross receipts for the taxable year are 
derived from real property trades or busi- 
nesses in which the corporation materially 
participates. 

The effective date of this provision would 
be July 1. 1993. 

description of spending cuts 

Offsets for Economic Incentives for Growth and 

Savings 

Mandatory Programs 

1. Eliminate Lump Sum Retirement Bene- 
fit for Federal Employees: This benefit al- 
lows federal civilian employees to elect upon 
retirement to receive a lump sum payment 
roughly equal to employee contributions in 
exchange for a reduced annuity for life. The 
1990 budget agreement suspended this benefit 
through 1995. This option eliminates it en- 
tirely, for savings in 1996-1998. 

2. Medicare Secondary Payor Reform: S. 
285. would require employers to mark a new 
box on IRS W-2 form to indicate whether em- 
ployees are in a group health care plan. This 
information would be used by Medicare and 
other federal programs to know whether to 
seek payment from the private insurer for 
working Medicare beneficiaries who are 
being provided with insurance coverage. 

Discretionary Programs: Savings in these 
programs could be enforced through a reduc- 
tion in the 1994-1995 discretionary spending 
caps, and an extension of spending caps 
through 1998. 

3. Reduce Federal Aid for Mass Transit: In 
1993. the principal federal transit assistance 
programs will provide about $2.8 billion in 
capital grants and about $0.8 billion in oper- 
ating assistance for local mass transit. Fed- 
eral grants generally pay 80% of the costs of 
qualifying capital projects and offset up to 
50% of local transit operating deficits. This 
option reduces the federal share of qualifying 
investment costs for mass transit to 50% and 
eliminates operating assistance. 

4. Eliminate Highway Demonstration 
Projects: According to CBO. the federal gov- 


ernment will provide a total of $96 billion in 
highway grants to states during the 1994-1998 
period. States will obligate most of this 
money on highway projects of their own 
choosing. The Department of Transportation 
will distribute about $90 billion, or 93% of 
the total, according to broad statutory for- 
mulas and other procedures prescribed by 
law. The remaining $6 billion will be obli- 
gated on projects earmarked by the Congress 
in both the Intermodal Surface Transpor- 
tation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and an- 
nual appropriations bills. ISTEA alone con- 
tains more than 500 separate projects. This 
option would amend ISTEA to eliminate 
contract authority for the demonstration 
projects contained in the bill. 

5. Modify the Service Contact Act by 
Eliminating the siiccessorship Provision: 
The McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act 
of 1965 sets basic labor standards for employ- 
ees on government contracts whose principal 
purpose is to furnish labor, such as laundry, 
custodial, and guard services. Contractors 
covered by this act generally must provide 
these employees with wages and fringe bene- 
fits that are at least equal to those prevail- 
ing in their locality or those contained in a 
collective bargaining agreement of the pre- 
vious contractor. The latter provision ap- 
plies to successor contractors, regardless of 
whether their employees are covered by a 
collective bargaining agreement. This option 
would eliminate the successorship provision 
and as a result, federal procurement costs 
would fall because this option would promote 
greater competition among contractors. 

6. Reduce Federal Employment by 150.000: 
This option can be accomplished through at- 
trition during the next five years. In addi- 
tion, greater savings in personnel might be 
achieved through 5. 797. which would provide 
a one-time government wide early retire- 
ment window. 

7. Reduce Federal Government Administra- 
tive Exr)enses: This option would reduce gov- 
ernment administrative expenses in such 
areas as travel, rental payments to others 
than GSA. equipment (does not include pay 
or benefits for employees). In 1993. this op- 
tion would provide for $1.2 billion rescission 
in these accounts. 

8. Modify Vacation Leave for Federal Man- 
agers: Most federal employees may accumu- 
late no more than 240 hours of vacation 
leave — the equivalent of 30 working days. 
When employees leave federal service, they 
or their survivors are entitled to payment 
for the unused leave. By contrast, senior ca- 
reer employees may accumulate unused 
leave without limit. This option would hold 
the career Senior Executive Service to the 
standards that govern leave accumulation 
for most other employees, payments of used 
leave would drop. 

9. Reduce Legislative Branch Administra- 
tive Expenses: This option requires the Leg- 
islative Branch to reduce administrative ex- 
penses by $20 million a year. 

10. Eliminate Interstate Commerce Com- 
mission: The Interstate Commerce Commis- 
sion (ICC) regulates rates, operating rights, 
and mergers and acquisitions of interstate 
motor carriers and railroads. It also rules on 
rail abandonments and construction of new 
rail lines. The ICC's powers have diminished 
since the passage in 1980 of the Motor Carrier 
Act and the Staggers Rail Act. and its staff 
and budget have decreaised accordingly. 
Some regulation remains, including a num- 
ber of routine applications for ICC approval 
of operating rights, rates, and other business 
decisions. Deregulation would apply only to 
economic regulation; motor carrier safety 


12042 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


would continue to be regulated by the Fed- 
eral Highway Administration. 

11. Close Privatize Federal Helium Re- 
serves; This option would sell the federal 
government's helium installation and pipe- 
line to private industry. 

12. Reduce Legal Services Corporation 
Funding by 50%: The Legal Services Corpora- 
tion, an independent, not-for-profit organiza- 
tion, supports free legal aid to the poor in 


civil matters. About 300 state and local pro- 
grams receive grants from federally appro- 
priated funds. This option would reduce 
funding for the Legal Services Corporation 
by 50% between 1994-1998. 

13. Terminate Copyright Royalty Commis- 
sion: This agency establishes copyright pay- 
ments for jukebox records and rebroadcasts 
of television programs over cable TV sys- 
tems. Some believe such work could be ac- 

ECONOMIC INCENTIVES FOR GROWTH AND SAVINGS 

Iln millions of dollars] 


complished by ad hoc arbitration panels. 
This option terminates the Commission. 

14. Reduce Foreign Aid: This option would 
reduce foreign aid spending for the European 
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 
reduce funding for the Special Defense Ac- 
quisition Fund, and provide for no increase 
in funding for International, Development 
Authority. . ' •. 


tttective 


1993 


1994 


1995 


1996 


199? 


1998 


Total 


TAX INCENTIVtS FOR PRIVATE )0B CREATION ANO SAVINGS 
Reduce l>w Cost of Capital ai>il Tai f^nallies on investment. 

kidei the Basis of Assets foi Caoitai Gams. Assets sold after Indeimg Begins ,.. 

Alternative Minimum Tai Changes to Alter AMI Adiustment and Eliminates ACE Adiustment 

Encourage Investment m Small Business 

Increase Eipensmg Deduction Under § 179 to $25 000 dndeied) from current JIOOOO limit „ 

Reduce tlie Tai Bias Against Savings (tnal favors consumption) 

Bentsen-Roth Super IRA Reinstates Fully DeductiDle iRAs i Creates Backioaded IRA Option: Frontloaded 
Effective 

Penalty-Free Early Withdrawals for First Home Purctiases. College Education. Medical Eipenses and long- 
term Unemplo»ment Costs from IRAs 401(li)s and 403(D»S 
Encourage Private Businesses to Hue New Employees 

1 3 85 percent Jol)s Income Ta« Credit for Hiring New Employees -.__>-...^.__ 

Repeal Tai Penalties on Industry Sectors 

Repeal Luiuiy, Taxes on Boats, Cars Airplanes lewelry i furs _„ 

Modify Passiye loss Rules for Real Estate/Matenal Participation .. .. ^ ». 


...„ Jan I 1993 Jtii- 

uaiy 1 1993 
„.. July I. 1993 

.„.. July I 1993 

Jan I. 1994 ian 


1. 
DOE 


1996 


-^ 


July 1 1993 

Jan I. 1993 
July 1. 1993 


(S200I 
(15) 
(155) 

(425) 


(S400I 

(507) 

(3.949) 

(2 953) 

(567) 

(1.275) 


($1200) 

(1.664) 

(1.6931 

(1.696) 

(567) 


($2 2001 

(2421) 

(1 223) 

(312) 

(474) 


($3 300) 
(2198) 

(115) 
(3.175) 

(378) 


($4600) ($11,700) 

(2.151) (8.941) 

(4621 (8.342) 

(4 847) (3.046) 

(253) (2.394) 

(1.700) 


Mai tai/fiKentives tor loPs and savings 


(1731 

1314) 
(304) 

13861 
(557) 

(471) 
(525) 

(563) 
(587) 

(665) 
(685) 

(2572) 
(2,658) 

1938) 

(4 363) 

(4,371) 

(7 002) 

(11016) 

(13,663) 

(41353) 


SPENOING OFFSETS TO PAY FOR JOBS PROGRAM 
Mandatory Programs 

Eliminate Lump Sum Benefit lor Federal Employees 

Medicare Secondary Payor Reform 
Discretionary Programs Enforced Through Spending Caps 

Reduce Federal Aid for Mass Transit 

Eliminate Highway Demonstration Proiects ,„: 

Modify Successorship prov m Govt service contacts 

Federal Employee Savings (Federal Employment 150000) 

Federal Government Administrative Eipenses (1993 rescission) 

Modify vacation leave lor federal managers 

leg Branch Administrative Savings ($20 miHionTyear) 

Eliminate Interstate Commerce Commission 

Close/Piivatize Federal Helium Reserves 

Reduce Legal Services Corporation Funding tiy 50 percent 

Trminate Copyright Royalty Tnounal 

Reduce Foreign Aid Eur Bank lor Recon t Dev and Spec Oef Acq 

Total offsets 
Net budget impact 


Oct 1 1995 

Oct 1. 1993 

Oct 1, 1993 

Oct 1 1993 

Oct 1 1993 

Oct 1, 1993 
DOE 

Oct 1 1993 

Oct 1 1993 

Oct 1 1993 

Oct 1 1993 

Oct 1 1993 

Oct 1 1993 

Oct 1. 1993 


1200 


1200 




2.100 

3.032 

3197 

8329 

400 

eso 

650 

650 

650 

3000 

3991 

7.135 

8 001 

9 022 

9843 

39.191 

S30 

950 

1300 

1600 

1850 

6.230 

IM 

760 

1000 

( 1150 

1200 

4.249 

M 

in 

180 

190 

190 

900 

in? 

2766 

2 927 

3183 

3.287 

13.344 

1500 

1600 

1700 

2000 

2.400 

10.400 

5 

5 

10 

10 

15 

45 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

100 

2S 

30 

30 

30 

30 

145 

m 

133 

138 

143 

150 

692 

IN 

190 

195 

195 

200 

940 

1 

1 

I 

1 

1 

5 

KM 

500 

500 

500 

500 

2100 


1.200 


4 391 


7 '85 


10 7M 


12 704 


13 690 


50,520 


26? 


3414 


3 749 


1688 


9167 


Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I wish 
to thank my distinguished colleague 
from Delaware for his comments this 
morning and for his leadership in the 
development of this legislative pack- 
age. He has a long history of success in 
working as a member of the Finance 
Committee to develop bills that help 
the economy and create growth and 
create jobs. That has been the area 
where he has concentrated in the years 
that I have watched him, 16 years from 
the other body, and then in just the re- 
cent years in the Senate. 

He was, of course, one of the two 
principal sponsors of the Kemp-Roth 
legislation that was passed back in the 
1980's, and he has been a great leader in 
trying to correct the mistake we made 
in taking away the IRA, the individual 
retirement account options that people 
had and took advantage of in the 1980's. 
They did their job, and I think that is 
what the Treasury Department wanted, 
to put it away, because the people were 
putting money in savings accounts; 
they were doing what we thought they 
would do. And just in recent years the 
distinguished Senator from Delaware 
has worked with the former chairman 
of the Finance Committee in the devel- 
opment of a new IRA bill, the Bentsen- 


Roth Super-IRA. So I am just delighted 
to be associated with my distinguished 
colleague, the Senator from Delaware, 
in this effort. 

Madam President. I was listening to 
the President's remarks this morning, 
and he was talking about how the tax 
bill passed the other body just last 
night, by the slimmest of margins — a 
change of three votes and it would have 
lost — was going to create growth and 
jobs. 

I kept saying how? That must not be 
the same bill that I have been reading. 
And I have gone back and looked at it 
this morning. I still do not see how this 
is going to create growth and create 
jobs. It is going to hurt the economy. I 
tnink it is going to cost us jobs, lose 
jobs. 

We heard just this morning in the 
news that the growth in the economy is 
lower than had been anticipated. It is 
now estimated that the first quarter 
GDP, originally thought to be 1.8 per- 
cent will drop to 1.2 percent. Perhaps, 
before I finish my remarks, I will give 
you the rest of the latest numbers that 
we are trying to get off the wire service 
at this moment. 

The major components of the rec- 
onciliation tax bill that passed the 


House of Representatives last night are 
taxes, taxes, taxes, tax increases on ev- 
erybody. I have heard this line before: 
"Don't worry. It is going to be on the 
upper income." I even voted for tax 
bills in the past partially based on 
that, partially based on the fact that 
we have all these spending programs 
and, we have to pay for them. I am not 
buying that deal again. 

Taxes will go up not only on individ- 
uals. Their rates will go up, corporate 
taxes will go up, utility bills will go up. 
and that affects everybody, because of 
the so-called Btu tax. I have been won- 
dering why the focus was on the British 
thermal unit tax. I figured it out. The 
people in Washington who vote must 
think that is a tax on the British, Brit- 
ish thermal tax, so it will not affect us. 

But it will not work that way. It is 
going to drive everybody's utility bills 
up. Farm costs will go up, so certainly 
that will cause food prices to go up. 
The cost of doing local government 
business will go up because they will 
have increased gasoline prices and 
other energy costs. 

It also includes Social Security tax 
increases on the retirees, of all things. 
How in the world is that going to help 
people? Certainly that is not a part of 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12043 


it that will contribute to growth in 
jobs, but it will hurt our elderly retir- 
ees in this country. 

The major spending cuts. There is 
talk that we are going to have some 
savings in cuts. Where are they? They 
are in defense again, drastic cuts in de- 
fense. I tell you, if you are from a 
State that has been involved in sup- 
porting our military over the years, 
like California, like 'Mississippi, or 
Texas, I think you have already found 
out that, if you cut back defense, if you 
cut out individuals, if you cut out 
bases, you hurt the economy. Maybe in 
the long term we will be able to see 
where that spending goes. But what 
about in the meantime? We talk about 
retraining, moving money from defense 
over into the private sector. It is a 
pretty good idea. I still have not fig- 
ured out how we are going to make it 
happen. I am prepared to work on that. 
In the interim, it will cost us jobs. 

Let us talk about the positive. I do 
not want to just throw rocks this 
morning. President Clinton has en- 
dorsed several of the features in the 
Roth-Lott package. In fact, some of 
them are in his package. Let us talk 
about how we can really move the 
economy forward in a positive way, 
create growth and create jobs. 

This package represents what the 
American people are crying out for. 
Democrats have said this. Republicans 
have said it. What we hear from our 
people back home loud and clear is this 
message: "Don't raise taxes; cut spend- 
ing and reduce the deficit." This was 
the message of the last election. It still 
is the message. It is time that we heed 
that message. 

The Roth-Lott bill does just that. 
Our proposed bill would provide tax in- 
centives to encourage private sector 
growth. We need that. It will cut Gov- 
ernment spending to pay for those tax 
incentives and reduce the deficit at the 
same time. These are the three critical 
components of any economic growth 
plan. Our bill includes incentives to 
create jobs, cuts in spending, leaving 
probably, we hope, about $9 billion, but 
a substantial amount of money to ac- 
tually reduce the deficit. 

This is in sharp contrast to the plan 
that passed the House of Representa- 
tives just last night. It does the oppo- 
site. That bill increases taxes, in- 
creases Government spending in many 
areas. The ratio of tax increases to 
spending cuts in that bill, the one that 
passed the House of Representatives, is 
$5 in tax increases to $1 in spending 
cuts. 

We have come a long way from what 
we heard in the campaign: Promises of 
$3 in spending cuts to every $1 in tax 
increases. And even in the State of the 
Union Address, the President promised 
$1 for $1. We have even gone downhill 
since then and since the budget resolu- 
tion passed the Senate, which called 
for a ratio of $3.03 in tax increases to 


every $1 in spending cuts. I thought 
that was horrible. 

The trend is even more alarming 
when you consider the fact that the tax 
increases will be a sure thing. Take a 
look at it. my colleagues. The tax in- 
creases will occur in the first couple of 
years. In fact, taxes are going up right 
now because the bill is even going to be 
retroactive. This bill will not become 
law until probably late June or July, if 
at all. If it goes into effect then, it will 
be retroactive to the first of the year, 
a little detail a lot of folks seem to for- 
get. 

This is what is included in that rec- 
onciliation tax increase bill that ye 
saw pass just last night. The limited 
proposed spending cuts are "iffy" at 
best because they come later on. Any- 
body who has watched the Congress 
more than 2 weeks already has figured 
out that we might keep our commit- 
ments for a year or two. I do not mean 
that as critically as it sounds. Cir- 
cumstances change. Hot spots develop 
around the world. The economy does 
something different than what you ex- 
pect. But time after time after time I 
have seen the Congress say we are 
going to cut spending later. It does not 
happen. 

When will we learn? We cannot tax 
ourselves into prosperity. The record 
shows that higher taxes have a nega- 
tive impact on the economy. How much 
can the working people of America 
stand? They are carrying a tremendous 
burden. They are willing to help. They 
want better roads. They want better 
schools. They want health care for 
those that really cannot help them- 
selves. But they are getting tired of 
paying the bill increasingly year after 
year for those that are not producing. 
So we have to find a way to help them 
to be able to produce. How do you do 
that? Get them a job. 

So here is what the Roth-Lott bill 
will do. It provides tax incentives, 
which will create permanent jobs. In 
total, our estimates show that it will 
create 800,000 jobs over 5 years. These 
incentives will allow the private sector 
to create real, lasting jobs, not Govern- 
ment make-work jobs. We cannot all 
work for the Government for Heaven's 
sake. 

Mr. GRAMM. Why not? 

Mr. LOTT. Because those jobs are not 
real. They will not last and somebody 
has to pay the bill. In Washington, that 
is the question. Why not? Why cannot 
everybody work for the Government? 
The Government is supposed to work 
for the people. Government should get 
out of the way, let the businesses in 
this country, large and small, hire peo- 
ple with a real job. 

I believe the best way to ensure sus- 
tainable economic growth is to put 
money back into the private sector. 
Can Uncle Sam run a successful busi- 
ness? Do we want him to? When was 
the last time Uncle Sam, the Federal 


Government, succeeded? I am hard 
pressed to find many Americans, if 
any. who would answer these first two 
questions with a yes. They just do not 
think the Government can or should do 
it. Everybody in America can describe 
Government inefficiencies, most often 
on a personal basis. We all remember 
expensive toilet seats, coffee pots, and 
hammers. 

The private industry is the place 
where you create those jobs. It is im- 
portant to remember that 4 million net 
new jobs have been created by firms 
with less than 20 employees since 1988. 
That is how we do it in my poor, strug- 
gling State trying to pull itself up. 
Small business is the answer. That is 
the engine that will move this job-cre- 
ation train. 

This package will substantially en- 
hance small business' ability to create 
those jobs. Increasing the expensing de- 
duction under section 179 from the cur- 
rent $10,000 to $25,000 will enable them 
to invest in new technology and equip- 
ment at less of a cost. 

I believe that this is a provision that 
President Clinton has endorsed. It is in 
his plan. So we can get together on 
that. 

In addition, our bill includes a new 
income tax credit for employers who 
hire new full-time employees. This is a 
component I really wanted in the pack- 
age. The Senator from Delaware sup- 
ports it and agrees that we should have 
it in there. We need to provide some 
opportunity for small businesses to 
reach out. get a little tax break to pro- 
vide a job. Then, that unemployed per- 
son would be able to occupy that real 
job because the incentive would be 
there for the small business to create it 
through the tax credit. This recovery 
has been labelled a jobless recovery. 
While the economy has improved, job 
creation is not where it should be. This 
credit would give businesses the addi- 
tional incentive to hire new full-time 
employees by lowering their cost of 
labor. 

The employer would receive a credit 
equal ' to 13.85 percent of the first 6 
months' wages of all new hires. This is 
only 6 months. This is not a deal to pay 
indefinitely to keep these folks. It is 
designed to try to offset the payroll 
taxes. FICA and FUTA. It would be 
capped at the annual Social Security 
wage base and would be effective for 
any 6 months during the year July 1. 
1993. to June 30. 1994. So the emphasis 
is now. This is not 2 years from now. It 
is for this year, for 6 months. It is for 
new hires only. It would work. It will 
not affect the trust funds at all. No 
money will be spent unless jobs are 
really created. No moving things 
around. Once people have jobs, they 
can get off public assistance and con- 
tribute to the tax base themselves. 

This package differs from the so- 
called stimulus package recently con- 
sidered by the Congress. While that 


12044 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


plan would have added $16.3 billion to 
the deficit, at a minimum, this plan 
will actually reduce the deficit by ap- 
proximately $9.1 billion. Government 
spending would be cut to pay for these 
growth incentives. We have got to get 
the spending side of the balance sheet 
under control. And the package that 
was voted on in the House last night 
will not do it. I mean, even if we did 
what it says we are going to do in the 
next 5 years, at the end of that 5 years 
the deficit will be higher. 

The fiscal problem in this country is 
not insufficient revenues. While our 
taxes have remained at 19 percent of 
GDP since 1970, spending has increased 
from 20 to 24 percent of the gross do- 
mestic product. 

I believe we should cut spending 
across the board. Some people say, OK, 
pick out what you want. And my reply 
is anything you want to cut, except the 
Social Security, highway, and other 
trust funds; they are paid into for a 
specific purpose. We all know deficit 
reduction is critical. This plan would 
accomplish the reduction that it says 
it will, and I am willing to work with 
others to even find more places to 
come up with savings. 

Let me mention some savings that 
are included in the bill. Then, I will 
conclude, because I know others want 
to speak. Some of our proposed savings 
are: Eliminate the lump-sum benefit 
for Federal employees; Medicare sec- 
ondary payor reform; and reduce Fed- 
eral aid to mass transit — I think that 
should be done more on a local level. 

We would modify vacation leave for 
Federal managers who get very fine, 
nice extended vacation leaves, and 
make cuts in the legislative branch. 

We would close or privatize some of 
the Government-owned things like the 
helium reserves — that is totally ridicu- 
lous. You are not talking about an in- 
significant amount of money; it is $692 
million over this period of time if we 
close or privatize the helium reserves. 

We would also reduce foreign aid to 
the European Bank for reconstruction 
and development. Hey, can they not do 
that themselves? They have a pretty 
good economy over there. 

Also, our package would index cap- 
ital gains. There would be an explosion 
in turnover and activity, if people 
knew they could sell things and not 
have to pay an astronomical capital 
gains tax based on inflation. 

I urge my colleagues to look at this 
package. It is so important, in my 
opinion, that we provide incentives for 
growth. What the static scoring models 
we are forced to use here in the Senate 
do not reflect is that sustained eco- 
nomic growth is the best way to truly 
reduce the deficit. This is a real pack- 
age, one that would really create 
growth and jobs, cut the deficit and cut 
spending. That is what the American 
people say they want, and I believe 
them. You are going to get a chance to 


vote on this package the first time 
there is a good opportunity that comBs 
along. Perhaps even the so-called stim- 
ulus package coming back from the 
House might be a good opportunity. So 
I am delighted to join my colleague 
from Delaware, who is sponsoring this 
legislation. 

I yield the floor at this time. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the job cre- 
ation plan that my colleagues. Sen- 
ators Roth, Lott, and others have in- 
troduced is precisely the approach the 
American people have been waiting for. 

This proposal illustrates the fun- 
damental difference between Repub- 
licans and Democrats. Republicans be- 
lieve in creating long-term jobs in the 
private sector. Democrats believe in 
creating short-term Government jobs. 

We know that reducing the cost of 
capital— whether through a capital 
gains measure or by increasing the 
expensing deduction — will produce a 
positive effect on the jobs market. 

Encouraging investment in business 
and encouraging private businesses to 
hire new employees will help create 
real jobs, not temporary, make-work 
Government jobs. 

One provision particularly important 
to my State of Kansas is the repeal of 
the luxury tax. 

This bill recognizes that having a job 
is not a luxury. It's high time we re- 
peal the so-called luxury tax on private 
airplanes, boats, cars, jewelry, and 
furs. 

The luxury tax was a Democrat-in- 
spired tax scheme which was supposed 
to result in a windfall of greenbacks — 
but really created an avalanche of pink 
slips. 

The folks on the assembly line at 
Beech. Cessna, and Lear in Wichita, 
KS, will tell you — this tax may have 
been aimed at the high-flying fat cats 
but it landed on the little guy. 

A second fundamental difference be- 
tween Republicans and Democrats is 
Republicans are opposed to adding to 
the deficit. That is why this package is 
paid for with spending cuts, not big 
taxes. 

I have spent some time traveling 
around the country to talk with real 
Americans, and the word on Main 
Street is "cut spending first." This 
package meets American taxpayers' 
bottom line, cutting taxes to create 
jobs and paying for it by cutting waste- 
ful Government spending. 

Some of the spending cuts in this 
plan include eliminating pork in the 
highway and mass transit programs, 
stopping duplicate Medicare payments, 
slashing congressional spending, cut- 
ting foreign aid spending, and reducing 
the Federal bureaucracy. These are 
items I think most Americans can 
agree need to be trimmed. 

I fully support the approach that the 
Roth-Lott proposal takes and hope 
that our Democrat colleagues will join 
us in creating real jobs for hard-work- 
ing Americans. 


Mr. BURNS. Madam President. I 
thank my friend from Mississippi Sen- 
ator Lott, who has worked with Sen- 
ator Roth on this particular piece of 
legislation, which I think is probably 
the most meaningful we have had in 
the last couple of years. 

The supplemental that the President 
offered this body just a month ago that 
was unsuccessful here was pretty much 
his idea on how we can jump-start this 
economy. It was just about a month 
and a half ago that we were over in 
Delaware visiting with a man there, 
and it was quite a success story. I want 
to tell that success story because here 
we are flying around in Washington. 
DC. trying to figure out how to jump- 
start the economy, increase the job 
base, and create jobs for people grad- 
uating from college now and going into 
the work force. I have a daughter grad- 
uating college this spring, and she is 
going on to medical school. She better 
start looking for a job. or she will not 
make it through medical school. 

The story is of a man who was a 
sharecropper from Georgia. He came up 
North and got ahold of $500. and he 
bought a truck and leased it out. In 15 
years he went from zero worth, or 
maybe less than that, on a $500 loan, to 
being worth over $500 million today, 15 
years later. Along the way, he created 
110,000 jobs. 

I see the Senator from Texas on the 
floor. He has met this man and we had 
a very long visit. 

Why are we running around this town 
trying to come up with an idea on how 
to stimulate the economy when the 
only thing we have to do is send $500 to 
this man. He will do it all over again. 
Or, find some more people that have 
that kind of spirit and idea and has the 
opportunity to expand it on his own. 

I do not know how we got into this 
position where the Government is the 
greatest adversary of the people who 
actually provide the economic base and 
the quality of life for this country. I 
am very happy to join Senator Roth — 
who happened to graduate high school 
in Montana; but he represents Dela- 
ware—in propounding this piece of leg- 
islation. 

It is very simple. I will have to agree 
with my friend from Mississippi that 
maybe it is too simple for people to 
really understand, to just allow small 
business to hire workers by giving 
them a tax credit for new employees — 
how important is that for people com- 
ing out of our schools this spring? — or. 
to allow small business investment by 
increasing the deductions for new busi- 
ness expenses. It is very important. 

I wonder; he had a little smile on his 
face a while ago. He said not everybody 
can go to work for the Government, be- 
cause they are not meaningful jobs. I 
will tell you what, I do not see the 
Government firing anybody; maybe 
they should. But it is not happening, 
because we are not downsizing Govern- 
ment any. 


May 28, 1993 

So we have to figure out something 
else. Two out of every three Americans 
get their first job from small business. 
In Montana it is three out of every 
four. That goes up. In Montana 98 per- 
cent of our businesses are considered 
small business. We are a State of small 
businesses. 

Our Nation's ability to create new 
jobs is dependent on the Government's 
policy to encourage small business to 
expand and grow. Legislation is crafted 
to encourage small business to invest 
the necessary capital to create new 
long-term jobs. That is just the way it 
is. We are only a State of 800.000 peo- 
ple, and we are scattered over 148.000 
square miles. 

The Chair can understand that. I 
imagine, after two statewide elections 
in California. I have had the oppor- 
tunity to travel California extensively, 
for 5 years. It is a big State. So we 
know what distances are. and how im- 
portant small businesses are in our 
small towns. 

You can say. sure, in San Francisco, 
where the occupant of the Chair was a 
very able mayor, there is big business; 
but basically the underpinning of the 
city was small businesses, mom and 
pop shops, who hired 4, 5 employees, 
and most a lot less than 20. 

That is where this is intended to 
help, those people who are like that, 
from the farmer to the local hardware 
store, machinery dealer, the fertilizer 
guy, and what I call the seeds-feed-and- 
weed folks. They are providing us with 
the jobs and products and services that 
enhance our quality of life. 

So as America moves forward, let us 
try and come up with an idea that is 
simple. Let us use the old KISS prin- 
ciple—keep it simple, stupid — so that 
we can all understand it, and we can all 
put America first to build it from the 
grassroots up. I think that is the very 
important part. Not everything t« this 
country is done for the almighty dol- 
lar. We just want to live in our commu- 
nities and contribute something back 
to our communities and contribute 
something to our State and, yes, keep 
this American free society alive and 
growing. We cannot do that if we tax 
people to death or if we put rules and 
regulations and mandates on them that 
they cannot in any way comply with. 

So heaping those on them is just 
throwing a wet blanket on economic 
recovery here in this Nation. We need a 
policy that encourages them. They 
need to be a partner. 

Senator J.^Y Rockefeller and I had 
a hearing yesterday on new materials 
and new technologies. It is staggering 
what new technologies and techniques 
are out there if we, the Government, 
would get out of the way, start setting 
some standards and rules, and put 
some of these new products into play, 
especially in the building industry. 

How can we? We cannot be com- 
pletely dependent on natural resources 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12045 


anymore. We have to be smarter. It is 
like in our crime we cannot outbuild 
the lawbreakers with prisons. We have 
to outsmart them. We have that. The 
only thing we have to do is encourage 
it, get out of the way, get it into the 
private sector, and the folks who know 
how to make it work will make it 
work. 

So we need a policy that encourages 
business to do what they do best, and 
that is employ our people, provide an 
expanded job market, provide a place 
to start, and they also provide Ameri- 
cans with the highest quality of life 
and the highest standard of living for 
more percentages of people than any 
other nation in the world compared 
to — I will stand comparison in any 
other place in the world. Beat it up, if 
you want to, this still is the best place 
in the woi-ld to live. I have letters, I 
tell you, on my desk from folks want- 
ing to come to this country. I do not 
have very many letters from those 
folks who want out. 

We have to provide the folks the op- 
portunity, and this does it. It is simple, 
maybe too simple. 

Madam President, I thank you for 
the time, and I yield the floor. 


By Mr. STEVENS (for himself 
and Mr. MURKOWSKI): 
S. 1059. A bill to include Alaska Na- 
tives in a program for Native culture 
and arts development; to the Commit- 
tee on Indian Affairs. 

.\L.^SK.-\ NATIVE CULTURE .\SD ARTS 
DEVELOP.MENT ACT 

Mr. STE'VENS. Madam President, my 
colleague and I from Alaska have 
watched with interest the program 
that has developed in Hawaii under sec- 
tion 1521 of the Higher Education 
Amendment of 1986. It has been a most 
successful program for Hawaiian cul- 
ture and arts development. 

With the consent of my good friend, 
the distinguished senior Senator from 
Hawaii, Senator IXOUYE, I would like to 
introduce this bill that will include 
Alaska Native culture and arts devel- 
opment in the program that he has pio- 
neered in his State. 

I send to the desk a bill and ask it be 
appropriately referred. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. That will be the order. 

Mr. STEVENS. This is introduced for 
myself and my colleague. Senator MuR- 

KOWSKI. 


By Mr. RIEGLE (for himself and 
Mr. Chafee): 
S. 1061. A bill to increase the funds 
available under title XX of the Social 
Security Act for block grants to States 
for social services, and for other pur- 
poses; to the Committee on Finance. 

SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT RESTORATION 
ACT 

• Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President. I rise 
today along with my colleague from 
Rhode Island. Senator Chafee, to in- 


troduce the Social Services Block 
Grant Restoration Act of 1993. The pur- 
pose of this legislation is to restore 
funding to the title XX Social Services 
Block Grant Program. 

Title XX is the main source of fund- 
ing to the States for a wide range of so-' 
cial services aimed at promoting eco- 
nomic self-sufficiency and independ- 
ence for senior citizens, children a,pd 
low income-families. The program 
seeks to prevent and remedy neglect 
and abuse of children and adults who 
are unable to protect their interests. 
The prevention or reduction in the use 
of inappropriate institutional care is 
another goal of title XX. 

Mr. President, let me describe for the 
Senate some of the services and pro- 
grams that States provide through the 
use of title XX funds. My home State 
of Michigan has used title XX to help 
vulnerable adults receive direct serv- 
ices so that they can remain in their 
homes, instead of moving to a nursing 
home. Michigan also uses these funds 
to meet the day care needs of low-in- 
come working people who are unable to 
pay for private child care. In Arkansas, 
title XX helps pay for special services 
for the disabled; nonresidential youth 
services; and protective services for 
children. Kansas uses its title XX 
money to provide community and day 
living services to people with mental 
retardation. And in Oregon, the vast 
majority of title XX funds are used to 
meet the administrative needs of youth 
care centers and other family services. 

These are just some of the examples 
of what title XX funding allows States 
to do. These programs represent a good 
investment for America because of 
their cost-effectiveness. They promote 
self-sufficiency and independence. It is 
less expensive to keep a senior citizen 
or a person with mental retardation 
living in their home than it is to put 
them in a nursing home. America needs 
to make these kinds of investments 
that improve the lives of so many peo- 
ple. The social services block grant can 
make this possible. 

Despite the enormous benefits the 
program has and its popularity among 
the States, title XX funding eroded 
during the 1980's. The program was cut 
$600 million in the Omnibus Reconcili- 
ation Act of 1981. It now has a funding 
level of $2.8 billion— more than 43 per- 
cent below its fiscal year 1977 value in 
inflation adjusted dollars. 

Support for this program is wide- 
spread. Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent to submit for the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks, a letter 
from several member organizations of 
Generations United and other organiza- 
tions that support this program. *rhese 
organizations represent State and local 
governments, senior citizens, children, 
and people with disabilities. 

I believe that we have an obligation 
to help thoso^in our society who are in 
need. Title XX gives these people the 


12046 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12047 


opportunity to achieve independence 
and self-sufficiency so that they can 
live with dignity— and it accomplishes 
this in a cost effective manner. 

Mr. President. I ask unanimous con- 
sent that the text of the bill and the 
letter mentioned earlier be printed in 
the Record. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

S, 1061 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TTTLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ••Social Serv- 
ices Block Grant Restoration Act of 1993". 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

The Congrress finds that— 

(1) since 1981. title XX of Social Security 
Act providing for Social Services Block 
Grants has been the major source of Federal 
funding for a wide range of social services; 

(2) in all States, title XX block grants pro- 
vide substantial support for vital human 
services programs that are indispensable in 
assisting millions of children, youth, adults, 
older adults, and people with disabilities: 

(3) programs funded by title XX dollars are 
cost-effective since they are required by law 
to meet objectives of— 

(A) achieving or maintaining economic 
self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate 
dependency: 

(B) achieving or maintaining self-suffi- 
ciency, including reduction or prevention of 
dependency: 

(C) preventing or remedying neglect. 
abuse, or exploitation of children and adults 
unable to protect their own interests, or pre- 
serving, rehabilitating, or reuniting families; 

(D) preventing or reducing inappropriate 
institutional care by providing for commu- 
nity-based care, home-based care, or other 
forms of less intensive care; and 

(E) securing referral or admission for insti- 
tutional care when other forms of care are 
not appropriate, or providing services to in- 
dividuals in institutions: 

(4) funding for title XX has seriously erod- 
ed: and 

(5) the title XX program has never recov- 
ered after suffering a $600,000,000 cut in the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation -■^ct of 1981 
and is currently funded at $2,800,000,000. near- 
ly 45 percent less than the fiscal year 1977 
value in inflation adjusted dollars. 

SEC. 3. INCREASE IN TITLE XX AUTHORIZA'nON 
FOR BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR 
SOCIAL SERVICES. 

Subsection (o of section 2003 of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397b) is amended— 

(1) by striking •and" at the end of para- 
graph (4): 

(2) by striking •'each fiscal year after fiscal 
year 1989." in paragraph (5) and inserting 
•the fiscal years 1990. 1991. 1992. and 1993;": 
and 

(3) by adding at the end the following new 
paragraphs: 

••(6) $3,000,000,000 for the fiscal year 1994; 

••(7) $3,200,000,000 for the fiscal year 1995; 
and 

••(8) $3,300,000,000 for the fiscal year 1996 
and for each succeeding fiscal year.". 

Generations United. 
Washington, DC, March 23. 1993. 
Hon. DON.ALD RiECLE, 
U.S. Senate. Washington. DC. 

Dear Senator Riegle; We the undersigned 
members of Generations United, a coalition 


of over 100 national organizations represent- 
ing Americans of all ages, wish to commend 
you on your efforts to expand the Title XX 
Social Services Block Grant. 

Title XX has long been an important 
source of funds for state and local govern- 
ments in their struggle to meet the diverse 
needs of their residents. Designed to support 
services that foster self-sufficiency. Title XX 
assists constituents of all ages. It has been a 
key resource in the provision of child care 
for low-income families; child protective 
services including investigation, treatment, 
and emergency placement; adult day care 
transportation, and in-home care for the el- 
derly: and community-based services for peo- 
ple with disabilities. Title XX's flexibility 
allows it to be used to fill in gaps left by cat- 
egorical programs, to supplement other 
funds in order to meet extraordinary needs, 
and to leverage private dollars. 

Despite occasional small increases over the 
years. Title XX has yet to recoup the $600 
million that was slashed from its budget in 
1981. 

As America searches for ways to rebuild its 
local communities and •put people first." 
Title XX emerges as a critical tool to en- 
hance a broad array of services for Ameri- 
cans of all ages. 

We applaud your commitment to strength- 
ening the Title XX program and stand ready 
to assist you in your efforts. 
Sincerely. 

American Academy of Child and Adoles- 
cent Psychiatry. 

American Association of Retired Persons. 

American Orthopsychiatric Association. 
Inc. 

American Public Welfare Association. 

Association of Junior Leagues Inter- 
national. 

Boys and Girls Clubs of America. 

Catholic Charities USA. 

Center for Law and Social Policy. 

Child Welfare League of .America. 

Coalition for Juvenile Justice. 

Epilepsy Foundation of America. 

Gerontological Society of America. 

Girl Scouts of the USA. 

Green Thumb. Inc. 

Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs 
(ELCA). 

Massachusetts Intergenerational Network. 

National Association of Area Agencies on 
Aging. 

National .Association of Counties. 

National Association of Homes and Serv- 
ices for Children. 

National Association of Social Workers. 

National Association of State Units on 
•Aging. 

National Community Action Foundation. 

National Council of Jewish Women. 

National Council of Senior Citizens. 

National Perinatal Association. 

Oregon Generations Together. Inc. 

Orphan Foundation of America. 

Parent Action. 

Seattle/King County Generations United 

Travelers Aid International. 

United Way of America. 

WAIF. Inc. 

YWCA of the USA. 

OTHER SUPPORTING ORCANIZ.ATIONS 

American Humane Association. 

Association for Retarded Citizens. 

ChildHelp USA. 

National Association of Developmental 
Disabilities Councils. 

National Association of State Mental 
Health Program Directors. 

National Conference of State Legislatures. 

United Cerebral Palsy Association.* 


Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I am 
pleased to join Senator Riegle in in- 
troducing the Social Services Block 
Grant Restoration Act of 1993. Simply 
stated, this measure would increase the 
authorization for the title XX social 
services block grant, which as we all 
know supports a wide range of pro- 
grams that serve some of the most vul- 
nerable members of our society. 

Title XX funds have long been an im- 
portant source of funding for State and 
local governments that are working to 
meet the social needs of their constitu- 
ents. Child care, adult day care, in 
home care for senior citizens, and com- 
munity-based services for individuals 
with disabilities are just a few of the 
many programs supported by the social 
services block grant designed to pro- 
mote self-sufficiency and economic 
independence. And because there is a 
lot of flexibility. States can determine 
priorities and use title XX funds where 
they are most needed. 

Unfortunately, funding levels for 
title XX have not kept pace with infla- 
tion or the growing demand for serv- 
ices. State and local governments face 
increasingly difficult decisions in de- 
termining how best to use title XX 
funds, but the bill Senator Riegle and 
I are introducing would help alleviate 
this problem by increasing funding for 
title XX block grant by $600 million 
over 3 years. 

Mr. President, it is my hope that our 
colleagues will join us in this endeavor. 


By Mr. WOFFORD: 
S. 1062. A bill to amend the National 
Agricultural Research. Extension, and 
Teaching Policy Act of 1977 to improve 
the dissemination of information pro- 
duced by the Agricultural Research 
Service, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry. 

AGRICLLTLRAL RESEARCH DISSEMINATION ACT 
OF 1993 

• Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, I rise 
today to introduce the Agricultural 
Research Dissemination Act of 1993, a 
bill that will help move Government 
research from the laboratory to the 
marketplace. The Agricultural Re- 
search Dissemination Act will require 
the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology [NIST] to provide reg- 
ular, updated information on research 
being done by the Agricultural Re- 
search Service [ARS], the research arm 
of the CIS. Department of Agriculture. 

Updated information on agriculture 
research will be provided by ARS to 
NIST. NIST will then be required to 
disseminate the information in the 
same manner it does for other Federal 
Government research, such as: Re- 
gional centers for the transfer of manu- 
facturing technology, manufacturing 
outreach centers, and the National 
Technical Information Service of the 
Department of Commerce. 

This additional method of providing 
information about the most recent de- 


velopments in agriculture research to 
the agriculture industry will provide 
greater opportunity to develop com- 
mercial uses for these new tech- 
nologies. In my State. Pennsylvania, 
where agriculture is the largest indus- 
try, it is vital that business have full 
access to the latest research to retain 
a competitive edge. This is especially 
true for small- and medium-size com- 
panies that may have fewer resources 
available to remain informed about re- 
cent research developments. It is for 
these reasons that I offer the Agricul- 
tural Research Dissemination Act of 
1993. I ask consent that a copy of the 
bill be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks. 

There being no objection, the bill was 
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as 
follows; 

S. 1062 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled. 
SECTION I. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the "Agricultural 
Research Dissemination Act of 1993". 

SEC. 2. DISSE-MINA-nON OF AGRICULTURAL RE- 
SEARCH SERVICE INFORMATION. 

Section 1405 of the National Agricultural 
Research. Extension, and Teaching Policy 
Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3121) is amended— 

(1) by inserting •(a)" after -HOS": and 

(2) by adding at the end the following new 
subsection: 

■(bKl) The Secretary, acting through the 
Administrator of the Agricultural Research 
Service, shall provide the Secretary of Com- 
merce with periodic updates on the availabil- 
ity of information produced by the Service 
that is or may become available to the pub- 
lic. 

••(2) The Secretary of Commerce, acting 
through the Director of the National Insti- 
tute of Standards and Technology (estab- 
lished under section 2 of the National Insti- 
tute of Standards and Technology Act (15 
U.S.C. 272)). shall disseminate the informa- 
tion provided under paragraph (1). using all 
appropriate written, electronic, and other 
methods, to-^ 

•■(A) Regional Centers for the Transfer of 
Manufacturing Technology established under 
section 25(a) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(a)); 

"(B) manufacturing outreach centers: 

•■(C) the National Technical Information 
Service of the Department of Commerce: and 

••(D) other appropriate information sources 
that the Secretary determines to be appro- 
priate.".* 


By Mr. HATCH (for himself and 
Mr. Breaux): 
S. 1063. A bill to amend the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 
1974 to clarify the treatment of a quali- 
fied football coaches plan; to the Com- 
mittee on Labor and Human Resources. 

QUALIFIED FOOTBALL COACHES PLAN TECHNICAL 
CORRECTIONS ACT OF 1993 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise 
today to introduce the Qualified Foot- 
ball Coaches Plan Technical correction 
Act of 1993. Senator Breaux of Louisi- 
ana is joining me in this effort, and 
identical legislation (H.R. 1981) has 
been introduced in the House by Rep- 
resentative BILL Brewster. 


The purpose of this legislation is to 
correct an unfortunate and unintended 
legislative consequence that has placed 
the retirement plan of 559 college foot- 
ball coaches in jeopardy. 

As we all know, coaching is a unique 
profession. Football coaches often 
move from school to school, not know- 
ing how long they will stay in one 
place, usually for only a short period of 
time. The average tenure of a coach at 
Division lA and lAA schools is less 
than 3 years. Because of the many 
moves going on. it is difficult for a 
coach to be in one place long enough to 
qualify for the pension benefits offered 
by that school. Football coaches were 
in need of a retirement arrangement 
which allowed for portability associ- 
ated with the many changes in employ- 
ment. 

In the Tax Act of 1987, Congress ad- 
dressed this important issue affecting 
college football head coaches and as- 
sistant coaches by amending title I of 
the Employee Retirement Income Se- 
curity Act of 1974 [ERISA]. The amend- 
ment provided for a qualified football 
coaches plan that would be treated as a 
multiemployer plan and would include 
a qualified cash and deferred arrange- 
ment under section 401(k) of the Inter- 
nal Revenue Code of 1986. This legisla- 
tion was specifically targeted to make 
it possible for the American Football 
Coaches Association [AFCA] to sponsor 
a retirement plan for its members. 

With reliance on this legislation, the 
American Football Coaches Associa- 
tion sponsored its own 401(k) plan for 
members of the association. Currently, 
there are 559 active participants in the 
retirement plan. The number of poten- 
tially eligible participants exceeds 
4.400 college football coaches. The plan 
was intended to be a qualified plan 
with a cash or deferred arrangement as 
described in code section 401(k). The 
American Football Coaches Associa- 
tion requested the Internal Revenue 
Service to confirm the tax qualified 
status of their retirement plan. The 
plan received a favorable determina- 
tion letter from the IRS dated June 30. 
1988. which stated that the cash or de- 
ferred arrangement meets the require- 
ments of code section 401(k) as inter- 
preted by the proposed regulations. 
The IRS restated this position in sub- 
sequent letters in 1989 and 1991. 

At the same time Congress passed 
the legislation authorizing a retire- 
ment savings plan for coaches. Con- 
gress addressed another problem In 
ERISA that was unrelated to the 
coaches' retirement plan. In a prior 
court case regarding a pension plan 
provision allowing employer contribu- 
tions to be returned to the employer 
under certain circumstances, the Tax 
Court held that the ERISA standard re- 
garding employer withdrawals from 
pension plans, rather than the standard 
under the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986, applied for purposes of interpret- 


ing the code. Thus. Congress, in an at- 
tempt to reject the holding of the Tax 
Court, included a provision that stated 
that title I and title IV of ERISA are 
not applicable in interpreting the IRC 
of 1986. 

Last year, based on this obscure stat- 
utory .provision, the IRS changed its 
mind |On the exempt status of the 
coachejs" retirement plan. The IRS stat- 
ed thit the AFCA's argument that 
their plan qualified under title I of 
ERISA was invalid since the Tax Act of 
1987 provides that titles I and IV of 
ERISA are not applicable in interpret- 
ing the Internal Revenue Code. 

As a result of this 1992 decision. 
AFCA has now been advised that it will 
be forced to liquidate its plan by the 
end of 1993 unless it can secure tech- 
nical correcting legislation clarifying 
that the unrelated legislation con- 
tained in the 1987 act was not intended 
to invalidate the provision in the 1987 
act that clearly was intended to allow 
AFCA to sponsor its own 401(k) plan. 

The legislation I am introducing 
today would insert a provision in title 
II of ERISA that would let the quali- 
fied football coaches plan be treated as 
part of this title. Thus it would avoid 
the restrictions placed on titles I and 
IV of ERISA and allow for AFCA's re- 
tirement plan to be treated as qualified 
retirement plan under section 401(k). 

Liquidating the plan would have a 
devastating effect on the plan's many 
participants. Unless we act now with 
this clarifying legislation, the football 
coaches will be back where they were 
before 1987. and will be denied access to 
a retirement vehicle specifically pro- 
vided for them by Congress in 1987. To 
complete what Congress started in 1987. 
we need to enact this clarifying legisla- 
tion, so that there will no longer be 
any doubt as to the qualification of the 
section 401(k) plan that coaches have 
been contributing to since 1988. There- 
fore, I ask my colleagues to support 
this bill. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the bill be printed in the 
Record. 

There being no objection, the bill was 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as 
follows: 

S. 1063 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled: 
SECTION 1. SHORT 'nTLE, 

(a) Short Title.— This Act may be cited as 
the "Qualified Football Coaches Plan Tech- 
nical Corrections Act of 1993." 
SEC. 2. CLARIFICA'nONS OF PUBLIC LAW 100-202. 

Section 1022 of title II of the Employee Re- 
tirement Income Security Act of 1974 is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the 
following new subsection; 

••(1) QUALIFIED Football Coaches Plan.— 
For purposes of determining the qualified 
plan status of a qualified football coaches 
plan, section 3(37)(F) shall be treated as part 
of this title and a qualified football coaches 
plan shall be treated as a multiemployer col- 


12048 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


lectively bargained plan for purposes of title 
II the Employee Retirement Income Secu- 
rity Act of 1974." 
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

The amendment made by this Act shall 
apply to years beginning after the enactment 
of Public Law 100-202. 


By Mr. ROCKEFELLER: 
S. 1064. A bill to amend title XIX of 
the Social Security Act to clarify cov- 
erage of certified nurse-midwife serv- 
ices performed outside the maternity 
cycle under the Medicaid programs; to 
the Committee on Finance. 

REL.^TINO TO THE COVER.'^GE OF CERTIFIED 
NLRSE-.MIDWIVES 

• Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 
am pleased to rise today to introduce a 
modest, but very important bill. As 
most of my colleagues know, there are 
all kinds of barriers to receiving health 
care. Some barriers are financial. Oth- 
ers are bureaucratic and administra- 
tive. The legislation that I am intro- 
ducing today would eliminate an artifi- 
cial reimbursement distinction that 
prevents many women and infants from 
receiving essential primary and pre- 
ventive services from certified nurse- 
midwives. 

Certified nurse-midwives are spe- 
cially trained to provide prenatal care, 
intrapartum care, postpartum _^ care, 
normal newborn care, and well-women 
gynecology, including cancer screen- 
ing. The quality of care provided by 
certified nurse midwives has been doc- 
umented by the Office of Technology 
Assessment to be of high quality, and 
equivalent to care provided by a physi- 
cian. The Institute of Medicine re- 
ported that certified nurse-midwives 
are particularly effective in managing 
the care of women who, for social or 
economic reasons, are at high risk of 
having a low-birthweight infant be- 
cause of their proven track records in 
getting their patients to keep appoint-, 
ments and to follow prescribed treat- 
ment plans. The lOM recommended 
that certified nurse-midwives should be 
used more often and more effectively. 

Nurse-midwives have also dem- 
onstrated a willingness to provide care 
to vulnerable and hard-to-reach popu- 
lations. Over half of the women and in- 
fants seen by certified nurse-midwives 
have their care paid for by Government 
sources, such as Medicaid, Medicare, or; 
the Indian Health Service. This is more 
than double the percentage seen by 
doctors. Almost 60 percent of women 
cared for by certified nurse-midwives 
live in areas that are underserved. 

Mr. President, more than a decade 
ago. Congress enacted legislation to re- 
quire all States to cover care provided 
by certified nurse-midwives — to the ex- 
tent these individuals are authorized to 
practice under State law — under their 
Medicaid programs. Unfortunately, 
when the Health Care Financing Ad- 
ministration issued regulations imple- 
menting this legislation, an artificial 
distinction was made between services 


related to the maternity cycle and 
those that are not. HCFA's regulations 
limited Medicaid coverage provided by 
certified nurse-midwives to services 
that only relate to the maternity 
cycle, even though Congress clearly 
stated in report language that non- 
matemity-related services, such as 
cancer screening services and well- 
baby care, were meant to be reim- 
bursed. 

My legislation would define reim- 
bursable services under Medicaid to in- 
clude nonmaternity-related services 
provided by certified nurse-midwives. 
This will not only improve continuity 
of care for patients who, once they 
have completed their families, want to 
continue seeing the same health practi- 
tioner, but it will also increase the 
availability of primary and preventive 
services for all women by increasing 
the supply of health care professionals 
who can be reimbursed by Medicaid. 

In my own State of West Virginia, 
this legislation will have a significant 
impact on a small but growing core of 
certified nurse-midwives. Most of the 
nurse-midwives in West Virginia pro- 
vide primary, comprehensive care, in- 
cluding family — -planning services, 
breast and cervical cancer screening 
services, and gynecological care, in ad- 
ditioi) to maternity-related care. 
Through a variety of initiatives, the 
number of certified nurse-midwives in 
West Virginia has grown from only 4 in 
1989. to almost "25 certified nurse-mid- 
wives today. Most of this growth has 
been due to ah aggressive effdrX in 
West Virginia to improve the availatiil- 
ity of health care services for women in 
rural, underserved areas by training 
more certified nurse midwives. Cer- 
tified nurse midwives, because of short- 
er training times and their willingness 
to work in underserved areas, can play 
a valuable role in improving health 
care access in rural States like West 
Virginia. 

Last year, I was successful in getting 
this provision included in the Finance 
Committee's package of Medicare and 
Medicaid amendments. Unfortunately, 
it was dropped along with all other 
Medicaid amendments during con- 
ference deliberations. 

The Congressional Budget Office esti- 
mated last year that this provision 
would cost $11 million over 5 years— a 
preventive services for low-income 
women. I believe this bill can make a 
modest but definite improvement in 
the lives of many women who depend 
on certified nurse-midwives for their 
primary care, and I will do what I can 
to push for its enactment this year. 

Mr. President. I ask unanimous con- 
sent that my bill be printed in the 
Record. 

There being no objection, the bill was 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as 
follows: 


S. 1064 
Be It enacted in the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled. 

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF COVERAGE OF 
CERTIFIED NXRSE-MIDWIFE SERV 
ICES PERFORMED OUTSIDE THE .MA- 
TERNTTV CYCLE. 

(a) I.v Ge.n'ERAl.— Section 1905(a)(17) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(17)) is 
amended by inserting before the semicolon 
at the end the following: ■. and without re- 
gard to whether or not the services are con- 
cerned with the management of mothers and 
newborns throughout the maternity cycle". 

(b) Effective D.^te.— The amendment 
made by subsection (a) shall apply to serv- 
ices furnished on or after the date of the en- 
actment of this Act.« 


By Mr. DeCONCINI: 
S. 1065. A bill to deny the People's 
Republic of China most-favored-nation 
trade treatment; to the Committee on 
Finance. 

DENYING .MFN TO CHIN.\ 

Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, 
today I once again come to the floor of 
the Senate to introduce legislation to 
immediately terminate most-favored- 
nation [MFN] trade status with the 
People's Republic of China. While I am 
a proud cosponsor of the legislation in- 
troduced by thfe distinguished majority 
leader to condition rene\#al of China's 
MFN, I believe we must go further. 

I was extremely disappointed yester- 
day to learn that President Clinton had 
already determined how his adminis- 
tration will proceed on this important 
human rights issue. In this Senator's 
opinion, China has done nothing in the 
past year to warrant a continuation of 
the constructive engagement policy of 
the last administration. The Presi- 
dent's decision to extend favorable 
trade status for one additional year- 
even with his additional caveats about 
watching Chinese trade practices and 
foreign arms sales in the coming year — 
is yet another black mark in the U.S. 
human rights record toward China. 

All to often the Bush administration 
chose to coddle the brutal regime of 
the People's Republic of China [PRC] 
and to turn its back on the horrible in- 
justices committed by the Chinese ger- 
ontocracy. In His campaign President 
Clinton supported stern measures 
against the PRC; therefore, we in the 
Congress have an opportunity and an 
obligation to tell China's despotic lead- 
ership that the United Sates shall no 
longer ignore its gross misconduct. 

We have entered a new are. The Iron 
Curtain has fallen and democracy and 
free market economies are spreading to 
all corners of the globe. We no longer 
have to look over our shoulder at the 
omnipresent threat from the Soviet 
Union. That age has past. Now we have 
an opportunity to reevaluate our rela- 
tionship with China. 

Mr. President, of course we want to 
have friendly, normal relations with all 
countries. But, as a democracy, we can- 
not divorce our relations with the peo- 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12049 


pie of a country from our relations 
with their government. The coopera- 
tion of the Chinese dictators is no 
longer needed as a counterweight to 
Soviet expansion. They did us no favors 
in this regard because they feared the 
Soviet Union as much as, if not more 
than, we did. We no longer need to offer 
preferential trade status to entice Chi- 
na's communist despots to cooperate in 
international affairs. 

The international community is im- 
posing an economic blockade on the 
Serbs because of the terrible acts they 
are committing against Bosnia's Mos- 
lem population. Many members of Con- 
gress and I are calling for even harsher 
measures against the Serbian leaders. 
The Chinese leaders are committing 
less overt, but no less terrible crimes 
against their own people, and given the 
size of the Chinese population, the 
numbers of human lives affected is 
probably comparable to the number in 
Bosnia. My legislation to terminate 
MFN status for China is a far cry from 
an economic blockade, but we must 
draw the line somewhere. 

It is high time that the United States 
once again champion that cause of de- ■ 
mocracy and human decency for all 
people of the world, including those 
living inside the boundaries of the Peo- 
ple's Republic of China. We must take 
up the rally call of our newly elected 
president who on June 3, 1992, in ref- 
erence to President Bush's renewing 
MFN for China, declared that "It is 
time to put America back on the side 
of democracy and freedom." 

In 1991, former President Bush ad- 
dressed the Yale student body and jus- 
tified his position on China by stating 
that "the most compelling reason to 
renew MFN and remain engaged in 
China is not economic; it's not strate- 
gic but moral." My colleagues, I say to 
you this is the very reason to revoke 
China's Most Favored Nation status. 
Above all else, the United States has 
an obligation to not turn its head as 
the most basic principles of human 
rights and freedoms are trampled under 
an iron boot in China. 

China's reaction to a hardline stance 
on human rights is farcically predict- 
able. Each year when MFN is under re- 
view, the decrepit Chinese leadership 
makes a token gesture of leniency in 
the hope that it can beguile us into be- 
lieving they Vire making progress on 
their human rights record. This was 
the sad case again this year. Just nine 
days after President Clinton took of- 
fice, the Chinese government — in an ob- 
vious attempt to soften him up — re- 
leased two political prisoners. Wang 
Xizhe, an activist who has been jailed 
since the 1979 Democracy Wall move- 
ment, was one of those released. Gao 
Shan, an economist jailed in connec- 
tion with the 1989 Tiananmen Square 
protest, was the other. The shallowness 
of this action is revealed when the 
cases are examined closely. Wang was 


released after already serving 12 years 
of a 14-year prison term, and Gao had 
only a few short months of his sentence 
remaining. This is not a serious rever- 
sal of China's human rights record; it 
is mere grandstanding in an effort to 
make the world forget about the thou- 
sands of other lesser known political 
and religious prisoners who are un- 
justly kept in jails, labor camps, and 
detention centers. 

By freeing well known figures, those 
that have nearly completed their sen- 
tences, or those in poor health, Chinese 
officials hope to blind us with a public 
relations smokescreen. My colleagues, 
if you look through this facade, you 
will see conditions that we can no 
longer ignore. 

The human rights organization Asia 
Watch has recently released a report 
providing detailed information on sev- 
eral dissidents who are still being un- 
justly imprisoned. Xu Wenli and Wei 
Jingsheng were both Democracy Wall 
activists from the 1970's and both are 
serving 15-year sentences. For 13 years 
Xu has been confined to China's so- 
called model prison, Beijing No. 1. For 
3V2 of those years, he was held in a 
windowless damp box so small that he 
could not stand. This unquestionably 
cruel treatment is made more tragic by 
the fact it directly violates Chinese 
law. 

Wei Jingsheng, another major figure 
in the Democracy Wall movement, has 
been imprisoned even longer. Wei is re- 
ported to be in poor mental and phys- 
ical health. Nevertheless, he is now 
serving the remainder of his 15-year 
sentence in a forced labor camp in 
southern China. Wei was recently 
awarded the Gleitsman Foundation 
International Activist Award. The Chi- 
nese Government made a mockery of 
this award by releasing a tape purport- 
ing to show Wei smiling while on a 
shopping spree. This man serves a sym- 
bol to all of us who support democracy 
the world over, and that is why many 
of my colleagues and I proudly put our 
signatures on a letter appealing to the 
Chinese Government to let this coura- 
geous man go free. 

These two men are symbols of the 
greater repressive atmosphere in 
China. According to a State Depart- 
ment report released last year, China 
remains repressive and falls short of 
internationally recognized human 
rights norms. Concurring with the 
State Department's report are such or- 
ganizations as Asia Watch and Am- 
nesty International, each of which doc- 
ument China's despicable disregard for 
human rights. Despite the recent re- 
leases of highly public figures, Mr. 
Robin Munro of Asia Watch states 
that, for the average Chinese, govern- 
ment repression has increased over the 
last 12 months. This increase in repres- 
sion follows a tide of new legislation 
enacted by China's Ministry of Public 
Security on June 15, 1992 which allows 


for strict enforcement of a ban on any 
protests or demonstrations not sanc- 
tioned by the government. These laws 
authorize the use of all police methods 
to suppress even peaceful associations. 
The world witnessed these methods in 
the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. 
In effect, what this means is an in- 
crease in torture and beatings, arrests, 
and deportations. 

An even more dubious method em- 
ployed is disappearances. Disappear- 
ances of Chinese citizens increased 
starting 8 months ago when China ini- 
tiated a swift and brutal crackdown on 
underground democracy movements. In 
this ruthless campaign, dozens of citi- 
zens were seized from their homes, 
leaving their families no information 
about their whereabouts. Asia Watch 
recently published a list of 40 under- 
ground pro-democracy activities forc- 
ibly seized in this manner. One of the 
first people to disappear was Dr. Kang 
Yuchun, who was taken from his place 
of work. After 8 months. Dr. Kang is 
still missing, and the Chinese Govern- 
ment has yet to inform his family 
where or even why he is being held. 
This is an outrage — even more so since 
it is in violation of China's own law, 
which stipulates that families must be 
notified within 24 hours of the seizure 
of one of its members. 

Religious figures such as priests, 
bishops, and monks are also routinely 
taken, beaten, and never returned to 
their families. Bishop Fan Xueyan was 
seized by Chinese Government authori- 
ties in 1990. His lifeless body, with nu- 
merous signs of torture, was returned 
to his family by public security officers 
2 years later. "This behavior is despica- 
ble and unacceptable. These actions 
should not be rewarded with MFN, but 
rather with condemnation and outrage 
on our behalf. 

For the literally tens of thousands of 
political and religious prisoners of con- 
science, life is a living hell. The most 
sadistic forms of torture are indis- 
criminately used on poor people. Pris- 
oners axe routinely beaten with batons 
and shocked with electric cattle prods. 
Amnesty International has published 
reports of dissidents having their arms 
and legs tied behind their backs and 
suspended from the ceiling for hours at 
a time. Other torture methods have 
been described in this body on other oc- 
casions. The tragic bottom line is that 
these activities continue while our 
trade relations remain normal. 

The Chinese Government takes espe- 
cially harsh measures against the peo- 
ple of Tibet. Recent reports from Asia 
Watch and other human rights organi- 
zations continue to document this offi- 
cial oppression. The Chinese illegally 
annexed Tibet in 1949, claiming sov- 
ereignty over the region. Repression of 
indigenous independence movements 
has lead to the imprisonment, torture, 
and deaths of hundreds of thousands of 
Tibetans throughout the years. Dem- 


12050 


CONCESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


onstrators against Chinese rule are 
charged with the crime of trying to 
split China apart and are subject to 
brutal repression. China's claim on 
Tibet holds as much legal validity as 
Iraq claiming Kuwait is its Province 
Nineteen. China is also actively en- 
gaged worldwide to repress the Tibetan 
independence movement. Recently it 
used its political power to have th^ 
Dali Lama. Tibet's highest religious 
and political leader, barred from at- 
tending a conference in Thailand. Why 
is China so worried about us meddling 
in their internal affairs when they do 
not seem to mind influencing other na- 
tions? 

As if human rights abuses were not 
reason enough to suspend MFN, China 
is also a dangerous source of nuclear 
and conventional weapons prolifera- 
tion. China has sold Silkworm antiship 
missiles to Pakistan and Iraq, and has 
sold sophisticated weapons, tech- 
nology, and solid rocket missile fuel to 
Syria. China also assisted Iraq in its 
nuclear weapons development program. 
In February, China announced that it 
would build two 300 megawatt nuclear 
power reactors for Iran. It claims that 
the reactors would be used for peaceful 
purposes, but United States officials 
claim China has also sold Iran equip- 
ment capable of enriching uranium for 
nuclear arms. These sales are clearly a 
threat to United States security inter- 
ests and the Chinese must clearly un- 
derstand this. 

More recently, China has fostered 
further international nuclear instabil- 
ity in its actions toward North Korea. 
According to many experts, the aging 
and paranoid Stalinist regime in 
Pyongyang has initiated a rigorous nu- 
clear weapons program and. according 
to some reports, has already created 
weapons of mass destruction. North 
Korea's withdrawal from the Non- 
proliferation Treaty [NPT] and its re- 
fusal to allow inspectors from the 
International Atomic Energy Agency 
[IAEA] to review two suspected weap- 
ons sites are cause for rising tensions. 
The situation could be resolved peace- 
fully if the United Nations Security 
Council was allowed to investigate the 
problem, but China has blocked many 
efforts at an international solution. 
China has not been held accountable 
for its support of the nuclear weapons 
programs of highly unstable and ag- 
gressive regimes, and this cannot be al- 
lowed to continue. 

Another serious concern is China's 
own military buildup. According to a 
Washington Post article on March 31, 
China has been vigorously purchasing 
Russian aircraft, tanks, early warning 
radars, and other military equipment. 
It is also making its neighbors very 
nervous by claiming the whole South 
China Sea as its territory, and backing 
this up by extending its military influ- 
ence into the region with the creation 
of air bases and a blue-water navy. 


This aggressiveness is making this area 
of the globe potentially the most un- 
stable and heavily armed region of the 
world. 

Unfortunately, the debate on renew- 
ing MFN inevitably becomes an eco- 
nomic issue. Those who support re- 
newal claim that by withdrawing MFN 
status from China, money and jobs will 
be lost to the American economy. But 
look at the facts. According to the De- 
partment of Commerce, the United 
States built up an $18.26 billion trade 
deficit with China, our second largest 
trade deficit after Japan. 

China has been able to build this 
huge trade gap by using such dubious 
means as manufacturing cheap goods 
with prison labor. Asia Watch has 
shown that there are hundreds of pris- 
ons that double as factories. For exam- 
ple, the Changea Prison, holding 3,000 
women prisoners, is called the New Life 
Cotton Quilt Printing Factory, and the 
Hengshan Tungsten Mine is also the 
Hengshan Labor Reform Detachment. 
Asia Watch was even able to find Chi- 
nese documentation of one such prison 
factory, the Hunan Silk Factory, which 
has been exporting goods to the United 
States since the early 1980s. 

Many such prison factories are sus- 
pected of exporting cheap products — es- 
pecially textiles— to the United States. 
China is able to export to the United 
States billions of dollars worth of 
cheap textiles produced by prison labor 
by hiding the true origin of these 
goods. China is also guilty of dumping 
these goods on the American market in 
an attempt to undermine our textile 
industry. Clearly. China's MFN status 
does not produce jobs, but rather steals 
them from people right here at home. 

Mr. President, by revoking MFN sta- 
tus for China we will not isolate it or 
create an aggressive atmosphere be- 
tween our two countries. That is not 
the purpose of the bill I introduce 
today. The purpose is to obtain fun- 
damental changes in the way the Chi- 
nese Government treats its people and 
interacts globally. However, the simple 
fact remains that the aging, repressive 
government in Beijing has ignored our 
insistence on improving human rights, 
stopping nuclear and conventional pro- 
liferation, and instituting fair trade 
practices. China brushed us off because 
it was guaranteed by President Bush to 
receive MFN renewal. 

Mr. President, the Clinton adminis- 
tration must not be so lax with Chinese 
violations; it is therefore up to us to 
send a strong message to Beijing that 
America will no longer condone Chi- 
nese misconduct. I urge your support 
for this legislation to terminate MFN 
because, if we reward China with MFN 
this year, then surely we will all share 
in the repression by its despotic rulers 
in the years to come. 

I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
be printed in the Record. 


There being no objection, the bill was 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as 
follows: 

S. 1065 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, 
SECTION \ FINDINGS. 

The Congress finds that; 

(1) The People's Republic of China has en- 
gaged in flagrant violations of internation- 
ally recognized standards of human rights 
including— 

(A) the illegal seizure and disappearance of 
forty pro-democracy activists as reported on 
March 2. 1993. by the human rights organiza- 
tion Asia Watch. 

(B) the continuation of a policy of manda- 
tory sterilization and forced adherence to 
the one-child per family policy through, 
among other methods, the persecution of 
doctors who have removed government-man- 
dated intrauterine devices from women; and 

iC) continued reports of torture and other- 
wise cruel treatment of political prisoners; 
and 

(D) the religious persecution of citizens of 
China and Tibet by detention and house ar- 
rest. 

(2) The People's Republic of China contin- 
ues to harass and restrict the Chinese and 
international media and to interfere in V*ice 
of America broadcasts to China and Tibet. 

(3) Troops of the People's Republic of 
China have killed approximately 1 million 
Tibetans during China's illegal occupation of 
Tibet, according to information provided by 
the Dali Lama to Congress and the Presi- 
dent. 

(4) The People's Republic of China contin- 
ues to engage in a policy of forced labor, ac- 
cording to reports from Asia Watch and the 
General Accounting Office. 

(5) The People's Republic of China has re- 
fused to restrict the proliferation on biologi- 
cal, chemical, and nuclear weapons and tech- 
nology throughout the Third World, most re- 
cently, concluding agreements to build two 
nuclear reactors for Iran, after reportedly 
selling Iran uranium enriching equipment 
capable of producing weapons grade mate- 
rial. 

SEC. 2. DENIAL OF MOST-FAVORED-NATION 
TRADE TREATMENT TO THE PEO- 
PLE'S REPLBLIC OF CHINA. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law— 

(1) the President shall terminate or with- 
draw any portion of any trade agreement or 
treaty that relates to the provision of non- 
discriminatory (most-favored-hation) trade 
treatment to the People's Republic of China 
shall be denied nondiscriminatory (most-fa- 
vored-nation) trade treatment by the United 
States and the products of the People's Re- 
public of China shall be subject to the rates 
of duty set forth in column number 2 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States; and 

(3) the People's Republic of China may not 
be provided nondiscriminatory (most-fa- 
vored-nation) trade treatment under any 
provision. of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 
(19 U.S. C. 2431. et seq.). 
SEC. 3. EFFECTfVE DATE. 

The provisions of this Act shall apply with 
respect to articles entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse for consumption, after the 
date that is 15 days after the date of the en- 
actment of this Act. 


By Mr. RIEGLE (for himself and 
Mr. Levin): 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12051 


S. 1066. A bill to restore Federal serv- 
ices to the Pokagon Band of Pota- 
watomi Indians; to the Committee on 
Indian Affairs. 

RKCOGMZING THE POKAGON INDI.ANS 

• Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President. I rise 
to introduce legislation to provide Fed- 
eral recognition for the Pokagon Band 
of Potawatomi Indians. I am pleased to 
be joined by my friend and colleague 
from Michigan. Senator Levin. 

We in the Federal Government have 
not lived up to the trust relationship 
that we should have developed with 
this country's Indian tribes. The his- 
tory of our Government's relationship 
with our native people is full of broken 
promises and unfulfilled opportunities. 
Today, over 200 years after the first ne- 
gotiations between the Federal Govern- 
ment and Indian tribes, many issues re- 
main unresolved or inadequately ad- 
dressed. 

This situation is particularly true as 
it relates to Federal recognition of In- 
dian tribes. Tribes that have existed 
for centuries in one part of what is now 
the United States have not been ac- 
knowledged as having distinct commu- 
nities and specific legal rights. 

The Federal Government has created 
procedures intermittently over the last 
two centuries to formalize its relation- 
ship with Indian tribes. The Federal 
approval process, administered by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, is the latest 
attempt to resolve long-standing issues 
related to Federal recognition. 

The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi In- 
dians has formally applied for Federal 
recognition. Unfortunately, that proc- 
ess of obtaining recognition moves 
slowly, and in the Pokagons' case, 
backward. Although the Pokagons 
have been placed on the list to receive 
active consideration, other tribes have 
been moved ahead of them and they 
have been forced to wait even longer. 

The delay the Pokagons have faced is 
unacceptable. The tribe has assembled 
a great deal of documentation to sup- 
port its claim for recognition, includ- 
ing a book that details its tribal his- 
tory and its relationship with the Fed- 
eral Government. The brief summary 
of the history that follows is based pri- 
marily on that documentation. 

Among the principal requirements 
set out in the recognition process is 
that the tribe have a substantially con- 
tinuous Indian identity from the per- 
spective of the Federal Government. 
The Pokagons have had interaction 
with the Federal Government from the 
earliest time in our Nation's history. 
The tribe is descended from a tribe 
that was a signer of the Treaty of 
Greenville of 1795 that resolved conflict 
among tribes in the Michigan and Ohio 
region. The Pokagon Band of Pota- 
watomi Indians is the descendent of 
signatories of eight other treaties be- 
tween 1800 and 1830. 

The tribe has inhabited the area in 
what is now southwestern Michigan 


and northern Indiana at least from the 
time the United States was formed to 
the present. The right to live on that 
land was formalized in the 1832 Treaty 
of Tippecanoe. However, shortly after 
that agreement, the Federal Govern- 
ment began to implement the Indian 
Removal Act in western Michigan. 
Many of the Potawatomi Indians 
moved west as a result of that action. 
But, importantly, the Pokagon Band 
refused to move west. 

In the 1833 Treaty of Chicago— a key 
piece of evidence that addresses many 
of the requirements for Federal rec- 
ognition—the tribe negotiated the 
right to remain in Michigan. That 
right, incidently, was reaffirmed by the 
Michigan Superintendent of Indian Af- 
fairs, the Commissioner of Indian Af- 
fairs, the Senate, and the Supreme 
Court of the United States. 

From that time period forward to the 
present, the Pokagon Band has re- 
mained in Michigan and Indiana and 
has had dealings with the Federal, 
State, and local governments. In turn, 
representatives of these various levels 
of government consistent identified 
this tribe as a distinct group. 

Many of the tribe's interactions with 
the Federal Government in the 19th 
century were related to annuities due 
to them because of a breach in the 
Treaty of Chicago. In the tribe's effort 
to obtain full payment of the annuities 
due to them, it worked through Con- 
gress and the courts. The Pokagons 
were ultimately successful in that ef- 
fort and annuities were paid to the 
tribe. 

The Pokagon Band applied for Fed- 
eral recognition under the Indian Reor- 
ganization Act in the 1930's. As many 
familiar with the history of Indian rec- 
ognition know, financial constraints 
and a lack of interest by the Federal 
Government were largely responsible 
for the decision not to apply the Indian 
Reorganization Act to Michigan. 

Despite that setback, the tribe con- 
tinued after World War II to seek an 
explicit legal identity. In 1952, the tribe 
was certified under Michigan law as a 
nonprofit corporation identified as the 
Potawatomi Indians of Michigan and 
Indiana. In 1981. it filed a petition for 
Federal acknowledgment with the Sec- 
retary of the Interior — 12 years later, 
that process has not been completed. 

Mr. President, the Pokagon Band of 
Potawatomi Indians should be feder- 
ally recognized. The historical record 
supporting recognition is well-devel- 
oped and convincing. And in reading 
and hearing the history of . the 
Pokagons, it helps us understand how 
the Federal Government has not met 
its obligations to America's native peo- 
ple. I believe that Federal recognition 
of the Pokagons will help in a small 
way to create a new level of trust. It is 
long overdue. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation. I ask unani- 
mous consent that the text of the bill 
be included in the Record. 


There being no objection, the bill was 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as 
follows: 

S. 1066 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United Stales of America in 
Congress assembled. 
SECTION I. FINDINGS. 

The Congress finds the following; 

(1) The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indi- 
ans is the descendant of. and political suc- 
cessor to. the signatories of the Treaty of 
Greenville 1795 (7 Stat. 49); the Treaty of 
Grouseland 1805 (7 Stat. 91): the Treaty of 
Spring Wells 1815 (7 Stat. 131 »; the Treaty of 
the Rapids of the Miami of Lake Erie 1817 (7 
Stat, 160); the Treaty of St. Mary's 1818 (7 
Stat. 185); the Treaty of Chicago 1821 (7 Stat. 
218); the Treaty of the Mississinewa on the 
Wabash 1826 (7 Stat. 295); the Treaty of St. 
Joseph 1827 (7 Stat. 305); the Treaty of St. Jo- 
seph 1828 (7 Stat. 317); the Treaty of Tippe- 
canoe River tS32 (7 Stat. 399); and the Treaty 
of Chicago 1833 (7 Slat. 431). 

(2) In the Treaty of Chicago 1833. the 
Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians was 
the only band that negotiated a right to re- 
main in Michigan. The other Potawatomi 
bands relinquished all lands in Michigan and 
were required to move to Kansas or Iowa, 

(3) Two of the Potawatomi bands later re- 
turned to the Great Lakes area, the Forest 
County Potawatomi of Wisconsin and the 
Hannahville Indian Community of Michigan. 

(4) The Hannahville Indian Community of 
Michigan, the Forest County Potawatomi 
Community of Wisconsin, the Prairie Band 
of Potawatomi Indians of Kansas, and the 
Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of 
Oklahoma, whose members are also descend- 
ants of the signatories to one or more of the 
aforementioned treaties, have been recog- 
nized by the Federal Government as Indian 
tribes eligible to receive services from the 
Secretary of the Interior. 

(5) Beginning in 1935. the Pokagon Band of 
Potawatomi Indians petitioned for reorga- 
nization and assistance pursuant to the Act 
of June 18. 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.. com- 
monly referred to as the "Indian Reorganiza- 
tion Act"). Because of the financial condi- 
tion of the Federal Government during the 
Great Depression it relied upon the State of 
Michigan to provide services to the Pokagon 
Band. Other Potawatomi bands, including 
the Forest County Potawatomi and the 
Hannahville Indian Community were pro- 
vided services pursuant to the Indian Reor- 
ganization Act. 

(6) Agents of the Federal Government in 
1939 made an administrative decision not to 
provide services or extend the benefits of the 
Indian Reorganization Act to any Indian 
tribes in Michigan's lower peninsula. 

(7) Tribes elsewhere, including the 
Hannahville Indian Community in Michi- 
gan's upper peninsula, received services from 
the Federal Government and were extended 
the benefits of the Indian Reorganization 
Act. 

(8) The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indi- 
ans consists of at least 1.500 members who 
continue to reside close to their ancestral 
homeland in the St. Joseph River Valley in 
southwestern Michigan and northern Indi- 
ana. 

(9) In spite of the denial of the right to or- 
ganize under the Indian Reorganization Act. 
the Pokagon Band has continued to carry 
out its governmental functions through a 
Business Committee and Tribal Council from 
treaty times until today. 

(10) The United States Government, the 
government of the State of Michigan, and 


12052 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


local governments have had continuous deal- 
ings with the recognized political leaders of 
the Band from 1795 until the present. 

SEC. 2. FEDERAL RECOGNITION. 

Federal recognition of the Pokagon Band 
of Potawatomi Indians is hereby affirmed. 
Except as otherwise provided in this Act. all 
Federal laws of general application to Indi- 
ans and Indian tribes, including the Act of 
June 18. 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.). shall 
apply with respect to the Band and its mem- 
bers. 

SEC. 3. SERVICES. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law. the>Band and its members shall be eligi- 
ble, on and after the date of the enactment 
of this Act. for all Federal services and bene- 
fits furnished to federally recognized Indian 
tribes without regard to the existence of a 
reservation for the Band or the location of 
the residence of any member on or near an 
Indian reservation. 
SEC. 4. TRIBAL .MEMBERSHIP. 

Not later than 18 months after the date of 
the enactment of this Act. the Band shall 
submit to the Secretary membership rolls 
consisting of all individuals eligible for 
membership in such Band. The qualifications 
for inclusion on the membership rolls of the 
Band shall be determined by the membership 
clauses in the Band's governing documents, 
in consultation with the Secretary. Upon 
completion of the rolls, the Secretary shall 
immediately publish notice of such in the 
Federal Register. The Bands shall ensure 
that such rolls are maintained and kept cur- 
rent. 

SEC. 5. CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNING BODY. 

(a) CONSTITUTIO.N".— 

(1) ADOPTION.— Not later than 24 months 
after the date of the enactment of this Act. 
the Secretary shall conduct, by secret ballot 
and in accordance with the provisions of sec- 
tion 16 of the Act of June 18. 1934 (25 U.S.C. 
476). an election to adopt a constitution and 
bylaws for the Band. 

(2) INTERI.M GOVER.M.NC DOCUMENTS.— Until 

such time as a new constitution is adopted 
under paragraph (1). the governing docu- 
ments in effect on the date of enactment of 
this Act shall be the interim governing docu- 
ments for the Band. 

(b) Officials.— 

(1) Election.— Not later than 6 months 
after the Band adopts a constitution and by- 
laws pursuant to subsection (a), the Sec- 
retary shall conduct elections by secret bal- 
lot for the purpose of electing officials for 
the Band as provided in the Band's constitu- 
tion. The election shall be conducted accord- 
ing to the procedures described in subsection 
(a), except to the extent that such proce- 
dures conflict with the Band's constitution. 

(2) Interim government.— Until such time 
as the Band elects new officials pursuant to 
paragraph (1). the Band's governing body 
shall be the governing body in place on the 
date of the enactment of this Act. or any 
new governing body selected under the elec- 
tion procedures specified in the interim gov- 
erning documents of the Band. 

SEC. 6. TRIBAL LANDS. 

The Band's tribal land shall consist of all 
real property, including the land upon which 
the Tribal Hall is situated, now or hereafter 
held by. or in trust for. the Band. The Sec- 
retary shall acquire real property for the 
Band. Any such real property shall be taken 
by the Secretary in the name of the United 
States in trust for the benefit of the Band 
and shall become part of the Band's reserva- 
tion. 

SEC. 7. SERVICE AREA. 

The Band's service area shall consist of the 
Michigan counties of Allegan, Berrien, Van 


Buren. and Cass and the Indiana counties of 
La Porte. St. Joseph. Elkhart. Starke. Mar- 
shall, and Kosciusko. 

SEC. 8. JURISDICTION. 

The Band shall have jurisdiction to the full 
extent allowed by law over all lands taken 
into trust for the benefit of the Band by the 
Secretary. The Band shall exercise jurisdic- 
tion over all its members who reside within 
the service area in matters pursuant to the 
Indian Child Welfare Act. 25 U.S.C. 1901 et 
seq.. as if the members were residing upon a 
reservation as defined in that Act. 
SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS. 

For purposes of this Act— 

(1) the term ' Band " means the Pokagon 
Band of Potawatomi Indians: 

(2) the term •member" means those indi- 
viduals eligible for enrollment in the Band 
pursuant to section 4: and 

(3) the term "Secretary" means the Sec- 
retary of the Interior.* 


By Mr. MITCHELL (for Mr. 
Krueger); 
S. 1067. A bill to authorize and en- 
courage the President to conclude an 
agreement with Mexico to establish a 
United States-Mexico Border Health 
Commission; to the Committee on For- 
eign Relations. 

BORDER HEALTH CARE COMMISSION ACT 

• Mr. KRUEGER. Mr. President. I am 
introducing legislation to create a 
United States-Mexico Border Health 
Commission. Long overdue, this Com- 
mission provides a forum and a mecha- 
nism for the two countries to coordi- 
natie and improve their public health 
an(I health education efforts. 

The need for this Border Health Com- 
mission is clear. Residents from San 
Diego to Brownsville suffer from ail- 
ments that have long been conquered 
in other parts of the country. Resi- 
dents have a rate of tuberculosis which 
is twice that of the national average, 
measles nearly three times more preva- 
lent along the border than in the Unit- 
ed States as a whole. Cholera, a disease 
we have not heard mention in many 
years in our country, is epidemic in 
part of Mexico and it continues to 
threaten to cross the border into the 
United States. 

Water borne diseases are devastating 
along the border because of living con- 
ditions that are fiercely challenging. 
Three hundred and fifty thousand peo- 
ple live in colonias in the United 
States. Unincorporated communities 
without clean drinking water or safe 
wastewater systems. Every day the 
residents of these communities are ex- 
posed to hepatitis, cholera, and other 
Third World diseases. 

Local communities and the States of 
Texas have been working very hard to 
address these serious problems. But 
they cannot succeed in a vacuum. 
Without help and coordination from 
Mexico, there is no effective way to 
eliminate these diseases that know no 
borders. 

This legislation would bring together 
representatives of the Federal Govern- 
ments. United States border States and 


the Government of Mexico to establish 
a joint strategy for health care along 
the border. The commission would also 
promote vaccination and education 
during disease outbreaks, and would 
have the authority to act on behalf of 
the member governments. 

Congressman Ron Coleman, my fel- 
low concerned Texan, has worked tire- 
lessly over the years to develop this 
important concept, and his efforts are 
worthy of mention in this Chamber. 
This commission is an important com- 
plement to the national health care re- 
form we will soon deliberate. 

I respectfully request urgent support 
for the Bi-National Border Health Care 
Commission. 

I ask unanimous consent that follow- 
ing my remarks the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record. 

There being no objection, the bill was 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as 
follows: 

S. 1067 

Be It enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled. 

SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH BINA- 
TIONAL COMMISSION. 

The President is authorized and encour- 
aged to conclude an agreement with Mexico 
to establish a binational commission to be 
known as the United States-Mexico Border 
Health Commission. 

SEC. 2. DUTIES. 

It should be the duty of the Commission — 

(1) to conduct a comprehensive needs as- 
sessment in the United States-Mexico border 
area for the purposes of identifying, evaluat- 
ing, preventing, and resolving health prob- 
lems that affect the general population of 
the area: 

(2) to implement the actions recommended 
by the needs assessment by — 

(A) assisting in the coordination of the ef- 
forts of public and private persons to prevent 
and resolve such health problems, 

(B) assisting in the coordination of the ef- 
forts of public and private persons to educate 
such population concerning such health 
problems, and 

(C) developing and implementing programs 
to prevent and resolve such health problems 
and to educate such population concerning 
such health problems where a program is 
necessary to meet a need that is not being 
met by the efforts of other public or private 
persons: and 

(3) to formulate recommendations t(5 the 
Governments of the United States and Mex- 
ico concerning a fair and reasonable method 
by which the government of one country 
would reimburse p public or private person 
in the other country for the cost of a health 
care service that the person furnishes to a 
citizen or resident alien of the first country 
who is unable, through insurance or other- 
wise, to pay for the service. 

SEC. 3. OTHER AUTHORIZED FUNCTIONS. 

In addition to the duties described in sec- 
tion 2. the Commission should be authorized 
to perform the following additional func- 
tions as the Commission determines to be 
appropriate: 

(1) To conduct or sponsor investigations, 
research, or studies designed to identify, 
study, and monitor health problems that af- 
fect the general population in the United 
States-Mexico border area. 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12053 


(2) To provide financial, technical, or ad- 
ministrative assistance to public or private 
persons who act to prevent, resolve, or edu- 
cate such population concerning such health 
problems. 

SEC. 4. MEMBERSHIP. 

(a) Number and .\ppointment of United 
STATES Section— The United States section 
of the Commission should be composed of 13 
members. The section should consist of the 
following members: 

(1) The Secretary of Health and Human 
Services or such individual's delegate. 

(2) The commissioners of health from the 
States of Texas, New Mexico, California, and 
Arizona or such individuals' delegates. 

(3) 2 individuals from each of the States of 
Texas. New Mexico. California, and Arizona 
who are nominated by the chief executive of- 
ficer of one of such States and are appointed 
by the President from among individuals— 

(A) who have a demonstrated interest in 
health issues of the United States-Mexico 
border area: and 

(B) whose name appears on a list of 6 nomi- 
nees submitted to the President by the chief 
executive officer of the State where the 
nominees resides. 

(b) Commissioner.— The Commissioner of 
the United States section of the Commission 
should be the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services or such individual's dele- 
gate to the Commission. The Commissioner 
should be the leader of the section. 

SEC. 5. REGIONAL OFFICES. 

The Commission should establish no fewer 
than 2 regional border offices in locations se- 
lected by the Commission. 
SEC. S. REPORTS. 

Not later than February '1 of each year 
that occurs more than 1 year after the date 
of the establishment of the Commission, the 
Commission should submit an annual report 
to both the United States Government and 
the Government of Mexico regarding all ac- 
tivities of the Commission during the pre- 
ceding calendar year. 
SEC. 7. DEFINTFIONS. 

For purposes of this Act: 

(1) Commission.— The term "Commission " 
means the United States-Mexico Border 
Health Commission authorized in section 1. 

(2) Health problem.— The term 'health 
problem" means a disease or medical ail- 
ment or an environmental condition that 
poses the risk of disease or medical ailment. 
The term includes diseases, ailments, or 
risks of disease or ailment caused by or re- 
lated to environmental factors, control of 
animals and rabies, control of insect and ro- 
dent vectors, disposal of solid and hazardous 
waste, and control and monitoring of air and 
water quality. 

(3) Resident alien.— The term "resident 
alien", when used in reference to a country, 
means an alien lawfully admitted for perma- 
nent residence to the country or otherwise 
permanently residing in the country under 
color of law (including residence as an 
asylee. refugee, or parolee). 

(4) United states-mexico border area.— 
The term "United States-Mexico border 
area" means the area located in the United 
States and Mexico within 100 kilometers of 
the border between the United States and 
Mexico.* 


By Mr. ROBB: 
S. 1068. A bill to reduce the Federal 
budget deficit and encourage energy 
conservation through an increase in 
the motor fuels excise tax, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance. 


increasing motor fuels EXCISE TAX 

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, during 
consideration of the energy bill last 
year the Senate adopted an amendment 
I offered calling for Congress to study 
the advisability of increasing the 
motor fuels tax as a way of encourag- 
ing conservation, reducing oil imports, 
stemming pollution, and encouraging 
the production of alternative fuels. 

Last week I received the results of a 
study conducted by the Congressional 
Research Service [CRS]. which con- 
firms that the gasoline tax is an excel- 
lent tool for achieving those policy 
goals, and provides guidance on how 
large the increase should be. 

At the time I offered the study 
amendment which was on the heels of 
the Persian Gulf war. I was particu- 
larly focused upon the need to reduce 
oil imports. 

Reliance on imported oil was a major 
factor in our involvement in that war. 
and I thought it was wrong to be debat- 
ing energy policy without even men- 
tioning the gas tax. widely seen as the 
most potent tool available for encour- 
aging conservation. 

As I said at the time, in the 1970's. 
our dependence on foreign oil cost us 
jobs; in the early 1990's. it cost us lives. 

Because President Bush had made 
clear he would veto any new taxes. I 
proposed a tax-shifting strategy, where 
the existing income tax burden was 
shifted to the gasoline pump. 

I stated at the time that I personally 
preferred that the revenue go toward 
deficit reduction, but I concluded that 
if we went for both the fiscal and con- 
servation benefits of the gasoline tax, 
we might in fact end up with neither. 

But the situation is different now. 

1 applaud President Clinton for being 
more serious about deficit reduction 
than his immediate predecessors, and 
his proposal to impose an energy tax, 
though controversial, is certainly cou- 
rageous. 

Indeed, only upon introduction of the 
Btu tax has serious talk of increasing 
the gasoline tax become possible. 

Where the auto companies once stood 
alone in an unlikely alliance with envi- 
ronmentalists in favoring the gas tax, 
now a whole range of industries, see it 
in their self-interest, to support a gas 
tax. 

While I applaud the President for his 
commitment and his courage in propos- 
ing the energy tax, and I have and will 
continue to support the President. I 
personally believe that the gas tax is a 
better option than the Btu tax. 

The CRS report I received last week 
found that the gas tax has smaller 
macroeconomic effects, is easier to ad- 
minister, involves less regional distor- 
tion, is less regressive, is a better cor- 
rection for externalities, is better at 
reducing air pollution, is better at re- 
ducing oil imports, and is less likely to 
adversely affect American competitive- 
ness. 


Accordingly, I rise today to intro- 
duce legislation to increase the motor 
fuels tax by 50 cents over 5 years. 

The bill would also expand the earned 
income tax credit in order to address 
the regressive impact of the energy 
tax. 

Increasing the gas tax by a dime per 
gallon each year for 5 years should 
bring in gross receipts of roughly $150 
billion, and net receipts of more than 
$130 billion. 

Madam President, I am more con- 
vinced than ever that we should move 
forward on increasing the gasoline tax. 

While I support the President's over- 
all proposal, and do not, and will not. 
in any way undercut it. I would simply 
point out that a gasoline tax would 
raise more revenue, more efficiently, 
with fewer harms, and greater benefits, 
and I urge my colleagues to consider it. 

Madam President. I ask unanimous 
consent that a copy of the CRS report 
and a copy of my proposed legislation 
be pi<hted in the Record. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

S. 1068 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled. 
SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TAX ON MOTOR FUELS. 

(a) 50-Cent Increase Over the Next 5 Cal- 
END.AR Years.— 

(1) Gasoline— Subparagraph (B)(iii) of sec- 
tion 4081(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 (relating to rates of tax) is amended 
by striking "2.5 cents a gallon" and inserting 

■2.5 cents a gallon, increased by 10 cents a 
gallon in each calendar year beginning after 
December 31, 1993. and ending before January 
1, 1999 ". 

(2) Diesel fuel.— Paragraph (4) of section 
4091(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to rates of tax) is amended by 
striking "2.5 cents a gallon" and inserting 
"2.5 cents a gallon, increased by 10 cents a 
gallon in each calendar year beginning after 
December 31. 1993. and ending before January 
1, 1999 ". 

(b) Floor Stocks Tax.— 

(1) I.mposition of tax. — On gasoline or die- 
sel fuel subject to tax under section 4081 or 
4091 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 
which on the first day of any tax increase 
calendar year is held by a dealer for sale, 
there is hereby imposed a floor stocks tax 
equal to the tax increase for such year. 

(2) .Application of other laws.— All other 
provisions of law. including penalties, appli- 
cable with respect to the taxes imposed by 
sections 4081 and 4091 of such Code shall 
apply to the floor stocks tax imposed by this 
subsection. 

(3) Due d.'^te of ta.x.— The taxes imposed 
by this subsection shall be paid before Feb- 
ruary 15th of the calendar year to which the 
tax relates. 

(4) Definitions.— For purposes of this sub- 
section — 

(A) Dealer.— The term -dealer" includes a 
wholesaler, jobber, distributor, or retailer. 

(B) Held bv a dealer.— An article shall be 
considered as "held by a dealer" if title 
thereto has passed to such dealer (whether or 
not delivery to the dealer has been made) 
and if, for purposes of consumption, title to 
such article or possession thereof has not at 


12054 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


any time been transferred to any person 
other than a dealer. 

(C) Tax increase calendar year.— The 
term 'tax increase calendar year'" means 
any calendar year beginning after December 
31, 1993. in which the deficit reduction rate 
or the diesel deficit reduction rate has in- 
creased over such rate for the preceding cal- 
endar year. 

(c) Conforming Amendments.— 

(1) Section 4081(d)(3) of the Internal Reve- 
nue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

•1995" and inserting -igeg'. 

(2) Section 4091(b)(6)(D) of such Code is 
amended by striking 'iggs " and inserting 
"1999 

(3) Section 4041(m)(l)(A) of such Code is 
amended by striking ■1.25 cents per gallon" 
and inserting •one-half of the deficit reduc- 
tion rate in effect under section 4081 at the 
time of such sale or use"". 

(d) Effective Date— The amendments 
made by this section shall apply to gasoline 
removed (as defined in section 4082 of the In- 
ternal Revenue Code of 1986) and sales of die- 
sel fuel (as defined in section 4092(a)(2) of 
such Code) made after December 31. 1993. 

SEC. 2. EXPANSION AND SIMPLIFICATION OF 
EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT. 

(a) General Rule.— Section 32 of the In- 
ternal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
earned income credit) is amended by striking 
subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the fol- 
lowing: 

"(a) Allowance of Credit.— 

"(1) In general. — In the case of an eligible 
individual, there shall be allowed as a credit 
against the tax imposed by this subtitle for 
the taxable year an amount equal to the 
credit percentage of so much of the tax- 
payer's earned income for the taxable year 
as does not exceed the earned income 
amount. 

•'(2) LI.MITATION — The amount of the credit 
allowable to a taxpayer under paragraph (1) 
for any taxable year shall not exceed the ex- 
cess (if any) of— 

"(A) the credit percentage of the earned in- 
come amount, over 

"(B) the phaseout percentage of so much of 
the adjusted gross income (or. if greater, the 
earned income) of the taxpayer for the tax- 
able year as exceeds the phasecut amount. 

'(b) PERCENTAGES AND AMOL'.NTS.— For pur- 
poses of subsection (a) — 

"(1) PERCENTAGES— The credit percentage 
and the phaseout percentage shall be deter- 
mined as follows: 

"(A) In GENERAL— In the case of taxable 
years beginning after 1994: 


In Hie case ol an eliiible individual oitti 


The credit 
pefcenlase 


The gnaseout 
percentage 


1 qualitying child 

2 or more qualityme cliildren 
No gualitying children 


34 37 

3966 

765 


1616 
1983 

7 65 


"(B) TRANSITIONAL PERCENTAGES.— In 

case of a taxable year beginning in 1994: 


the 


In the case ot an eli(il)le mdwidual «itli 


The credit 
percentage 

IS 


TlK phaseout 

percentage 

IS 


1 qualifying child 

2 or more qualifying children 
No qualifying children 


2660 

31 S9 

7 65 


1616 
1579 
7 65 


••(2) AMOCNTS.— The earned income amount 
and the phaseout amount shall be deter- 
mined as follows: 

•'(A) In general.— In the case of taxable 
years beginning after 1994: 


In the case oi an eligilXc indnidual «nth 


The earned 

income 
amount is 


The phaseout 
amount is 


1 Qualifying child 

2 or more qualifying children 
No qualifying children 


ts.ooo 

S8 500 
Sl.OOO 


SI 1.000 
$11,000 
S5.000 


•(B) Transitional amounts.— In the case 
of a taxable year beginning in 1994: 


In the case of an eligiOle individual with 


The earned 

income 
amount is 


The phaseout 
amount is 


1 qualifying child 

2 or more qualifying children 
No qualifying children 


S7750 " SllOOO 
$8,500 $11,000 

$4000 J5000 


(b) Eligible Individual.— Subparagraph 
(A) of section 32(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 (defining eligible individual) is 
amended to read as follow? 

•■(A) In general.— The term eligible indi- 
vidual' means — 

•■(i) any individual who has a qualifying 
child for the taxable year, or 

"(ii) any other individual who does not 
have a qualifying child for the taxable year. 

if— 

•■(I) such individual's principal place of 
abode is in the United States for more than 
one-half of such taxable year. 

•■(II) such individual (or. if the individual 
is married, the individual's spouse) has at- 
tained age 22 before the close of the taxable 
year, and 

•■(III) such individual (or. if the individual 
is married, the individual's spouse) is not a 
dependent for whom a deduction is allowable 
under section 151 to another taxpayer for any 
taxable year beginning' in the same calendar 
year as such taxable year." 

(c) Inflation Adjustments— Section 32(i) 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relat- 
ing to inflation adjustments) is amended— 

(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and 
inserting the following new paragraph: 

•(1) In general— In the case of any tax- 
able ye^r beginning after 1994. each dollar 
amount contained in subsection (b)(2)(A) 
shall be increased by an amount equal to — 
■■(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by 
••(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter- 
mined under section 1(f)(3). for the calendar 
year in which the taxable year begins, by 
substituting calendar year 1993" for 'cal- 
endar year 1992".". and 

(2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para- 
graph (2). 

(d) Confor.ming Amend.me.nts — 

(1) Subparagraph (D) of section 32(c)(3) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend- 
ed — V . 

(A) by striking 'clause (i) or (ii)" in clause 
(iii) and inserting •clause (i)^". 

(B) by striking clause (ii). and 

(C) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause 
(ri). 

(2) Paragraph (3) of section 162(1) of such 
Code is amencled to read as follows: 

•■(3) Coordination with medical deduc- 
tion.— Any amount paid by a taxpayer for in- 
surance to which paragraph (1) applies shall 
not be taken into account in computing the 
amount allowable to the taxpayer as a de- 
duction under section 213(a)."' 

(3) Section 213 of such Code is amended by 
striking subsection (f). 

(4) Subsection (b) of section 3507 of such 
Code is amended by redesignatihg para- 
graphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4). 
respectively, and by inserting after para- 
graph (1) the following new paragraph: 

"(2) certifies that the employee has 1 or 
more qualifying children (within the mean- 


ing of section 32(c)(3)) for such taxable 
year.". 

(5) Subparagraph (B) of section 3507(c)(2) of 
such Code is amended by striking clauses (i) 
and (ii) and inserting the following: 

••(i) of not more than the credit percentage 
in effect under section 32(b)(1) for an eligible 
individual with I qualifying child and with 
earned income not in excess of the earned in- 
come amount in effect under section 32(b)(2) 
for such an eligible individual, which 

"(ii) phases out at the phaseout percentage 
in effect under section 32(b)(1) for such an el- 
igible individual between the phaseout 
amount in effect under section 32(b)(2) for 
such an eligible individual and the amount of 
earned income at which the credit under sec- 
tion 32(a) phases out for such an eligible in- 
dividual, or". 

(e) Effective D.ate.- The amendments 
made by this section shall apply to taxable 
years beginning after December 31. 1993. 

Congressional Research Service. 

Washington. DC. May 20. 1993. 
Memorandum 
To: Honorable Charles S. Robb, Attention: 

Rick Kahlenberg. 
From:'Salvatore Lazzari. Specialist in Pub- 
lic Finance. Economics Division. 
Subject: Comparison of the Administration's 
Btu tax and a gasoline tax. 
This memorandum is provided in response 
to your letter proposing a gasoline lax in 
place of the Administration's propo.sed Btu 
tai. The first section of the memorandum 
compares the economic effects of raising the 
gasoline tax to the Administration's pro- 
posed Btu tax. These economic effects focus 
on fiscal, energy, and environmental policy 
issues. The discussion demonstrates that 
raising the gasoline tax would have fewer ad- 
verse economic effects than the Administra- 
tion's proposed Btu tax. The second section 
outlines how large a phased-in gasoline tax 
increase would be required to attain certain 
public policy objectives. The third section 
provides a brief discussion of the phase in of 
a gasoline tax in relationship to the business 
cycle. 

The analysis assumes that the revenue 
from these taxes will be used for deficit re- 
duction. It is also assumed that a gasoline 
tax increase would also apply to diesel fuel 
and other motor fuels in order to maintain 
the current relationship among existing 
motor fuels excise taxes. 
comparison of a gasoline tax with the btu 

TAX 

The Clinton Administration has proposed a 
Btu tax. primarily as a fiscal tool. The pro- 
posed tax is estimated to generate $22 billion 
in additional revenue each year when fully 
phased-in. about 27 percent of all revenues 
from the Administration's budget proposals. 
The Administration also views the Btu tax 
as an instrument of its energy and environ- 
mental policy— encouraging conservation, 
reducing reliance on imported oil. and im- 
proving the environment. The Administra- 
tion's original Btu tax proposal was revised 
on April 1. and recently by the House Ways 
and Means Committee, but the basic pro- 
posal remains intact. 

A strong economic case can be niade. based 
on the principle of economic efficiency, for 
some type of broadly-based energy tax. The 
production, consumption, and importation of 
fossil fuels allegedly generates substantial 
external costs to the economy, costs alleg- 
edly not fully covered in the price of such 
fuels. In spite of numerous regulations and 
excise taxes on energy (such as the gasoline 


5 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12055 


excise tax whose purpose is to fund the high- 
way system rather than compensate for 
externalities), most of these external costs 
remain uncompensated. In the absence of 
compensation, there is little incentive for 
adjusting energy production and consump- 
tion decisions to reflect the true costs of en- 
ergy to society. 

In mainstream theory, the correction of 
energy and environmental externalities im- 
plies a broad-based energy tax that would 
apply to fossil fuels with differential rates 
positively related to the amount of external 
cost generated by each fuel. For example, en- 
vironmental externalities would imply that 
tax rates be highest on coal, then oil. then 
gas. and that nonpolluting renewable energy 
resources such as hydro power be exempt (as- 
suming that the loss of farmland, etc. 
doesn't count as new environmental 
externalities). The Administration's pro- 
posed Btu tax is generally consistent in con- 
cept with this principle, but contains numer- 
ous features that are inconsistent. For exam- 
ple, coal and gas would be taxed equally and 
less than oil. Hydro power would be taxed at 
the same rate as coal and gas. 

The same line of theory suggests that a 
gasoline tax be imposed in order to correct 
for the external costs associated with the use 
of transportation fuels. Current Federal tax 
law does provided for a 14.1 cents tax on gas- 
oline, a 20.1 cent tax on diesel and a variety 
of other excise taxes on different types of 
motor fuels. However, these taxes do not 
fully correct for externalities for two rea- 
sons. First, they are mostly structured as 
user fees that fund the highway trust fund 
and various other trust funds, not as com- 
pensation for externalities. Second, even if 
the revenue generated by the taxes were used 
for compensation, the revenue would be inad- 
equate because the rates were set too low in 
relation to the alleged magnitude of the 
externalities generated. 

Both a gasoline tax and a broad-based tax 
on fossil fuels are economically justified in 
part on the basis of the need to correct for 
environmental externalities. However, gaso- 
line consumption is a result of activities 
that generate a different mix of externalities 
than the production/consumption of fossil 
fuels generally, and thus separate taxes are 
implied. In the event that a choice must be 
made between an increase in the gasoline tax 
and the Administration"s proposed Btu tax. 
it can be argued that the gasoline tax is a 
better instrument of fiscal, energy, and envi- 
ronmental policy. Both taxes would generate 
revenue for deficit reduction and to reduce 
pollution, but the gasoline tax would accom- 
plish these goals at lower administrative and 
economic costs. In addition, the gasoline tax 
would reduce dependence on imported petro- 
leum, which some consider a worthy goal, 
whereas the Administration's proposed Btu 
tax might increase dependence on imported 
petroleum, as is discussed below. 

The following discussion compares these 
two options on the basis of other criteria 
that are important factors in the choice 
about the desirable option for energy tax- 
ation. 

Macroeconomic effects 

Both options would have adverse effects on 
the economy. Some theory suggests that the 
gasoline tax might be preferable because a 
greater share of the tax burden is borne by 
consumers rather than producers. Existing 
empirical analyses suggest, however, that 
any differences between the two proposals" 
effects on the aggregate economy, assuming 
taxes of the same revenue effect, are of suffi- 
ciently minor magnitude that this criterion 


should not be an important factor in the 
choice between them. 

Ease of administration 
This criterion favors the gasoline tax. The 
reason is straightforward — the administra- 
tive system for a gasoline tax has been in 
place for 60 years. Raising the tax would im- 
pose no additional administrative burden. A 
Btu tax would require an entirely new and 
untested administrative apparatus. Given 
the complexity of the proposed Btu tax due 
to extensive exemptions for particular indus- 
tries and uses, it might prove to be a par- 
ticularly complicated tax to administer. 
Disparate impact by regions 

Reaching definitive conclusions on this 
issue is difficult and would require further 
study. There is evidence to suggest, however, 
that the Btu tax might be regionally more 
distortionary than the gasoline tax. A 1982 
Joint Tax Committee study found a flat rate 
Btu tax oh all fuels to be more distortionary 
than either the gasoline tax. or other energy 
tax options. A recent study of the Adminis- 
tration"s proposed Btu tax found the tax bur- 
den per family to vary widely across regions 
of the United States.' CRS studies on the re- 
gional effects of energy taxes have found the 
interstate distribution of per-capita tax bur- 
dens to be less variable or dispersed for the 
gasoline tax than for other energy tax op- 
tions.^ 

Regressivity 

Both taxes are regressive. The Btu tax is 
probably more regressive than the gasoline 
tax because data suggest that the ratio of 
total energy expenditures to income declines 
more rapidly as income rises than the ratio 
of gasoline expenditures to income. On the 
other hand, other parts of the President"s 
program address this effect. 

Economic efficiency 

This was discussed in considerable detail in 
the first part of the memorandum. While in 
theory efficiency would be promoted by im- 
position of both a broad-based energy tax 
and a higher gasoline- tax. a case could be 
made that increasing the gasoline tax is 
likely to be a more efficient instrument to 
compensate for externalities. 

Environmental concerns 

This is a difficult issue. Making a choice 
requires knowledge about the extent to 
which the various energy sources generate 
pollution, knowledge that currentJy is lack- 
ing. One can say. however, that the gasoline 
tax is levied on fuel that is known to be a 
major source of substantial air pollution. In 
contrast, the Btu tax would tax some fuels 
(such as hydropower) that are environ- 
mentally benign regarding air pollution, 
which is the major source of the uncompen- 
sated externalities. In effect, the revenue 
from these benign sources would generate no 
environmental benefits. 

Reducing oil imports 

This criterion favors the gasoline tax. 
First, the share of the tax base that is im- 
ported would be greater with a gasoline tax. 
Second, the Btu tax creates a perverse incen- 
tive to import petroleum products due to the 


'U.S. Congress. Joint Tax Committee. Tascs on 
Energy Consumption. June 8. 1982: and Philip K. 
Verleger. Jr. Prepared Statement before the Committee 
on Energy and Saturat Resources. U.S. Senate. Feb- 
ruary 24. 1993. 

= U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research 
Service. Energy Taies A Comparative Analysis of An 
Oil Import Tax and A Gasoline Excise Tax and Their Ef- 
fects on the Stales. CRS Report. No. 86-637 E. by 
Salvatore Lazzari. July 25. 1986. Washington. 


fact that it taxes fuels used as inputs in the 
domestic production of petroleum products, 
whereas it does not tax fuels used in foreign 
production of petroleum products. This has 
the effect of raising the cost of domestically- 
produced petroleum products relative to im- 
ported petroleum products. Raising the gaso- 
line and diesel fuel taxes would not create 
this type of distortion. Relatively small 
quantities of gasoline and diesel fuel are 
used by businesses in the production of do- 
mestic commodities. Most of these fuels are 
used in the delivery of commodities and they 
account for a relatively small fraction of 
total fuels used in transportation. The bur- 
den of higher gasoline and diesel fuel taxes 
for fuels used In business transportation 
would apply to both domestically produced 
and imported commodities. 

fnternational competitiveness 
The Btu tax would raise the costs of do- 
mestic producers relative to foreign produc- 
ers. The gasoline tax would be borne pri- 
marily by consumers of gasoline and diesel. 
Whereas, producers might not be able to 
completely pass the Btu tax on to consum- 
ers. It appears that the Btu tax is more like- 
ly to have adverse effects on the ability of 
domestic producers to compete with forei^ 
competitors. 
determining the size of the gasoline tax 
If raising the gasoline tax is to be consid- 
ered in lieu of the Administration's proposed 
Btu tax. the logical question is to ask how 
large the tax increase ought to be. Several 
economic criteria can be invoked to deter- 
mine, within certain bounds, the size of a 
gasoline tax increase. 

Rate necessary to correct for external costs 
The above discussion suggests that eco- 
nomic efficiency ought to be an important 
determinant of the size of the tax increase. 
The size of the efficient or •optimal" gaso- 
line tax rate would be that which would cor- 
rect for distortions in the gasoline market 
caused by the external costs of driving and 
gasoline use. The problem with this criterion 
is that it requires estimates of society's cost 
from environmental pollution, from conges- 
tion, and from dependence on foreign oil. 
These costs are extremely difficult to esti- 
mate and the resulting estimates are con- 
troversial. 

One study has estimated these external 
costs to be approximately $2.00 per gallon.' 
This estimate is probably high because it 
counts as external costs some costs that 
might more properly be considered to be 
market-determined adjustment costs. Based 
upon data presented in a recent CRS repwrt. 
a more plausible range might be 25« to 75« 
per gallon.'' This would be the amount of in- 
crease above the current rate of 14. le per gal- 
lon, which is primarily devoted to highways. 
Rate necessary to stimulate the development of 
alternative fuels 
A second economic criterion that may be 
used in determining the size of a potential 
increase in the gasoline tax is that rate nec- 
essary to raise gasoline prices high enough 
to stimulate the development and commer- 
cialization of alternative fuels. This cri- 
terion recognizes the economic reality that 
petroleum is the benchmark energy resource 


3 James J. MacKenzie. Roger C. Dow«r. and Donald 
D. T. Chen. The Going Rate What It Really Costs to 
Drive. World Resources Institute. June 1992. 

•U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research 
Ser\-ice. The External Costs of Oil Used In Transpor- 
tation. CRS Report 92-572 ENR. by the Environ- 
mental and Natural Resources Policy Division. June 
17. 1992. Washington. 


12056 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 28, 1993 

and that gasoline is the benchmark motor nomic activity. This would also be true of an Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I will 
fuel. Raising the price of petroleum would increase in the gasoline tax. Obviously, the take a moment, because I see my col- 
create the incentive to shift to alternative larger the tax increase the greater would the jeague seeking recognition 
sources of energy— natural gas. coal, renew- negative effects on Gross Domestic Product , romnliment thP%Pnatnr frnm Vir 
ables. etc.. all other things equal. Similarly. (GDP), employment, innation. and other i compliment tne senator trom Vir- 
raising the price of gasoline, either by rais- measures of aggregate economic activity. S^^]^ on tne Statement ne just made, 
ing the price of oil or by increasing the gaso- However, gasoline tax increases ranging While I cannot perhaps agree with the 
line tax, would create economic incentives from 25t to 50< per gallon would not likely amount of gasoline taxes that he is 
to substitute competing motor fuels— alco- have serious adverse macroeconomic con- proposing here in his remarks, I cer- 
hol fuels (ethanol and methanol), propane, sequences, especially if the tax would be tainly think he makes a very good 
liquefied natural gas, synthetic natural gats, phased-in gradually over the expansion stage point, and we should consider the gaso- 
electricity, etc. of the business cycle. ,. 2 ^ , ,. nn<«ihlp nartial 

Substantial development of alternative A recent CRS study used the Data Re- ""^ tax at least as a possiDie partial 

fuels occurred over the last twenty years, sources model of the macroeconomy to stim- alternative to the pending Btu tax for 

While this increase was driven by many fac- ulate the effects of a 30t increase in the gaso- several reasons. 

tors including a variety of Federal and sub- line tax. phased-in at 10< per year over three We do not need another huge bu- 
national government tax incentives, it was years. The results of this study are summa- reaucracy to correct it. We know how 
attributable primarily to rapidly accelerat- rized in table 1. and the full study is at- to collect the gasoline tax. The Btu tax 
ing real petroleum prices from 1973 to the tached for your Information. As the study ^jjj take a huge bureaucracy It is 
early 1980s (oil prices increased from about shows, after the second phase of the tax in- „„(_„ ►„ hp vprv rtiffprpnf to ficrnrp Hif 
$3.00 per barrel to over $32 per barrel). Today, crease. GDP is only 0.2 percentage points less 5 ,■; ^ "« veiy uiiicieiit lu uKure. uii- 
oil prices are $20 per barrel, a decline of one- than it would otherwise be without the tax. "cuit to calculate, ana aitncuit to col- 
third from their peak without the effects of After the third stage of the tax increase GDP lect. 

inflation. In real terms, oil prices are at his- is only 0.1 less than without the tax. And The other thing about the Btu tax 

torically low levels (the general price level most importantly, once the tax is fully that makes the gasoline tax preferable 

has risen by about 80 percent since the early phased-in, the economy would return to its is that the Btu tax is not exportable, 

1980s). In 1981 dollars, the current price of oil baseline growth path, the rate of growth that because it is figured in thermal units 

is about $10 per barrel; in 1973 dollars the would prevail without the additional 30t tax. instead of dollars and cents You can 

price is about $7 per barrel. Commensurate Obviously, the negative effects of a 50€ per . invoices VOU can demonstrate 

with that relative price decline, alternative gallon tax would be greater than for a 30c " _ r'j!,X, , ^ , can aemonstraie 

fuels development has slowed down in recent gallon increase, but these could be dampened ^° GATT, for example, the amount of 

years. What little growth in such develop- by phasing the Ux more gradually over a money that has been charged like you 

ment that has occurred has been driven pri- time interval longer than three years. can the excise tax. You cannot get a re- 

marily by regulatory and tax policies. bate on this when you sell the products 

If one wished to recreate the high real oil TABLE 1— POTENTIAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF A 30c PER in the world marketplace 

prices of the early 1980s to again stimulate GALLON INCREASE IN GASOLINE TAXES We know for example if you are at 

the production of alternative fuels, and given . c^otp 'ipvpl and von arp spllino- 

the 80 percent increase in price inflation Caieooa- ,ea.s- '^"^ *^*^^ '^^^' /'"^ y°^ ^^^ selling 

since then, this would suggest that oil prices „., ,Mi .oo. ,^ ,o^-, so^nething out-of-State. you do not 

would have to rise to $60 per barrel. Applying 1993 m* iw5 1996 1997 j^ave to charge a sales tax. That makes 

the same analysis to the level of gasoline ReaKiDP dxtcem ciunge). you more competitive. The same thing 

prices, a $0.91 tax on gasoline would be re- ^""" ■••■- - jf \\ H H H is true when we sell our products in the 

quired to keep the real price of gasoline con- u\" ol^t^' "~:""'~r 23 32 26 29 28 world marketplace. When you sell an 

stant at the 1981 level and generate alter- GDMet^to. (»««« ctonwi American product if you cannot deduct 

native fuel fipvplonrnpnt Base caw i* Zo Zo 2* ZS . .. . 

nauve luei aeveiopment. ,. , Phaseo-m ,as ta. 25 27 27 25 25 the additional tax, as you cannot the 

How btg of an increase m the gasoline tans aii ai once 28 27 26 25 25 Rtn tax that is eoin? to raise the rn<?r 

necessary to yield significant conservation? Unempio»m.ni ratt(p«>ctM) ^j-" ^^^- ^"^^ ^^ going to raise tne cost 

.,,.,, . „ ... BaMcase 73 66 61 58 55 of every product you sell in the world 

A relatively large tax per gallon would be (i„^.,„ ,„ ,«i ., 74 67 63 60 57 marketnlare It is nearlv pvervthinir 

required in order to significantly reduce the aii at once _ 74 68 63 60 57 marKetpiace. it is nearly everytning 

demand for gasoline. This is because the de- f«ierai buOjet oedcit (nw we use and everything we sell in this 
mand for gasoline tends to be price inelastic. Base" as.'"'' '"''°. ."'!'''' 2856 2721 2557 2389 2356 country. It is going to damage our abil- 
especially in the short-run. In addition. Phased-m gas la 2791 2595 2366 2195 2151 ity to compete. Several reputable Stud- 
given the currently low real price of gasoline J|ii5'^9V4„ H* (pi: '"' "" "'* '"* ''*' ies indicate we are going to lose 400.000 

(the market price adjusted for inflation) and „„„ jobs in this country if we raise reve- 

that consumers are at the inelastic portion Base case 34 43 43 46 47 „,,„^ r^^.^ »>,„ d»,, *„„ i„„»„„j „<• „ 

of the easoline demand curve relativelv f^^eo-m jas la. 33 43 43 46 47 nues from the Btu tax instead Of some 

01 tne gasoline aemanti curve, relatively ^|, , • jj ,3 ,3 ^^ ,, other alternative method 

large price increases would be required to re- t«i,) on 10-^. Irejsu/, twrnis rZ\, n^l 1 fV,i^i -r^o n^,, to^ r,^„, 

duce gasoline demand. However, given the (percent): One final thing. The Btu tax now 

relatively low price of gasoline in real terms. ^"^"" j ^ f? '? li H U crafted is automatically indexed. That 

even significant gasoline tax increases will xi'atoKt^" 66 71 69 69 ?i is the real dirty little secret about the 

keep the price of gasq>4ne relatively low in Current account deicit (iiiiiions current Btu tax. It goes up automati- 

real terms and compared to many western b,^J»'|J"' _ jjj „, ,,,3 „j, ,,5, cally each year without the Congress 

industrialized countries.^' pnasedm gas tai .: " 843 924 1013 1003 1023 having to vote on it. That is telling 

At Wkat Point Does Increasing the Gasoline ^!^J^^ 802 880 993 993 1018 ^^^ something. It is inflationary. What 

Tax Cause Serious Segatne Macroeconomic source CRS s.muiat.ons ot ir» DRi econometric moM happens is. of course, when you put the 

Consequences . , .^.,, . 

. . .. , . , . THE TIMING OF A GASOLINE TAX INCREASE tax on energy, everyone s energy bill IS 

» As was discussed above, any tax increase „ ... ■ ,....,.. • .. r- ■ - ..1. ^ 

would have adverse effects on aggregate eco- O" ^^^ '»«"« °^ timing, there is no question going to go up. For senior citizens that 

that a phase-in of the gasoline tax, as rec- is $400 a year more on their utility 

— -— ommended by your proposal, would be pref- biHg that is going to go up. 

^Even with the increases in gasoline tax rates, erable to a one-time increase. Phasing the vr„w hpoansp PnprA/ nrirps o-n iin_ 

gasoline prices in the U.S. are at their lowest levels . j .j result in a smaller shock to the ' "^^^^^^ energy prices gO Up— 

rgl^.rne^^rdlL7^:hrunaed''lute^re"^^: ecLoVirSstem than wTuld a'sS ^"^ ^ave an automatic index-the tax 
ro^wirironrwestrrVL^o^^aTfounfr"^^^ crease. The adverse macroeconomic effects will go up again next year and that will 
and Canada. In the United States, the combination are smaller initially under a phased in in- cause energy prices to go up more, and 
of alt Federal and State taxes (Including general crease than under a complete one-time tax taxes to go up again. So it feeds on it- 
sales taxesi on gasoline average about 37 cents per increase. This is also supported by Simula- self, it is inflationary, and makes us 
gallon, or 32 percent of the average price of all types tion results in table 1. even leSS Competitive In the market- 
er gasoline, based on data compiled by the Inter- The important issue here is the relation- _, „- ^j ^ nut even more 
national Energy Agency. In Western European coun- ship between the phase-in of the Ux and the ^'^'l® ^^ *^ ^° ^^"^ ^'^^ ^^\ ^^^." ^°'^^ 

TtL'Tni reZTTx'^L^TxJfvt^^^^^^ ^^^^^ °^ ^^^ business cycle. Given the cur- burdens on middle- and low-income 

per gallon in the "m^ period. Xuf'two-thirds of ""ent State Of the economy, it would be less P^°^]^- „„o=H..„oH ,v,o 

the average price of gasoline. Italy has the highAt recessive to begin at lower rates which would Some people have questioned me. 

tax rate— about J3.60 per gallon; Canada has the low- increase gradually in response to the econo- They said. "You are from an energy- 

est tax rate nearly S.80 per gallon. my's improved performance. producing State. You are from Okla- 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12057 


homa. How do you feel about the Btu 
tax?" 

In fact. I should not feel differently 
about it than anyone else in the coun- 
try, because that tax is not going to be 
collected from the producer, it is not 
going to be collected from the pipeline, 
it is not going to be collected from the 
utility. 

If you read the bill, it is going to be 
collected from the consumer. And there 
are consumers in Illinois, in Virginia, 
in New York, in Indiana, just the same 
as there are in Oklahoma. And all of 
our products are ^ing to be disadvan- 
taged in the world marketplace, wher- 
ever they are produced. 

So I think that, at least, as a part of 
the solution to the problem we now 
face as we try to recraft the package 
that comes over from the House, as we 
try to make it a fairer package, less re- 
gressive, fall less harshly on those that 
cannot afford to pay and do it in a way 
that will not involve a new bureauc- 
racy and do it hopefully with fewer 
taxes and more spending cuts, that it is 
exceedingly important, I think, to have 
this proposal from the Senator from 
Virginia on the table and have a fair 
discussion again in principle about 
looking at alternative forms of energy 
taxation to the current Btu tax that is 
now out there. 

I think this is a very constructive 
thing and I commend the Senator from 
Virginia. 

As I said, while I may not be able to 
agree with him that we ought to do it 
10 cents a year, the Btu tax already has 
8 to 10 cents of taxes in it in terms of 
the Btu equivalent. 

I think this is a very positive pro- 
posal and I commend him on the very 
thoughtful remarks he has made. 

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I thank 
my distinguished colleague from Okla- 
homa. I appreciate his kind remarks. 

I would reiterate, it does take cour- 
age to be a Senator from an energy- 
producing State, particularly a petro- 
leum-producing State like Oklahoma, 
to be statesmanlike enough at least to 
consider and to debate the pros and 
cons of the various approaches to in- 
clude those which might be considered 
to adversely affect your own State. 

I appreciate his kind words. I want to 
be a constructive participant in the de- 
bate and try to resolve the challenge 
that is facing this country. I think a 
serious consideration of the merits 
that the CRS study has cited with re- 
spect to the gasoline tax are an appro- 
priate part of that debate. 

So I thank my colleague from Okla- 
homa. 


By Mr. DURENBERGER: 
S. 1069. A bill to require any person 
who is convicted to a State criminal of- 
fense against a victim who is a minor 
to register a current address with law 
enforcement officials of the State for 
10 years after release from prison, pa- 
role, or supervision. 


JACOB WETTERLING CRIMES .^GAINST CHILDREN 
REGISTR.\TION ACT 

Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President. 
May 25 was National Missing Children's 
Day. Many Americans observe this en- 
tire week as Child Safety Week. 

Most of us can hardly begin to imag- 
ine the pain of having a child taken 
from us. But this is a time for us to 
stand with the parents and loved ones 
of missing children, and say that we 
are hoping and praying for their safe 
return. 

This is also a time for us to put some 
actions behind our words. It is a time 
to act to protect children. That is why 
I have chosen this week to reintroduce 
the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against 
Children Registration Act. 

This bill would require people who 
are convicted of a sexual offense 
against a child to register a current ad- 
dress with State law enforcement offi- 
cials, for 10 years after their release 
from prison. 

The bill is named after Jacob 
Wetterling— a boy I have never met. 
but hope to meet someday. 

Jacob became a missing child on Oc- 
tober 22. 1989, when he was only 11 
years old. While he was returning home 
from a convenience store with his 
brother and a friend, Jacob was ab- 
ducted at gunpoint by a masked man. 
No one has heard from Jacob or his ab- 
ductor since that day. 

This tragedy literally hit home to 
me, because it took place in my home 
community of St. Joseph. MN. Commu- 
nities across Minnesota and across the 
country were shocked and heartbroken 
by what happened to Jacob. St. Joseph 
is a small, safe community, and Jacob 
could have been anyone's child. Jacob's 
parents. Jerry and Patty Wetterling, 
have kept the hope of Jacob's safe re- 
turn alive, and we all share that hope 
with them. 

Law enforcement officials responded 
quickly to Jacobs abduction. But if 
local and State police had been aware 
of the presence of any convicted sex of- 
fenders in the community, that infor- 
mation would have been invaluable 
during those first critical hours of in- 
vestigation. The Jacob Wetterling bill 
will provide law enforcement with this 
tool. 

Congress needs to enact this legisla- 
tion, not only to protect children from 
abductions, but to protect every child 
that may be a victim of sexual abuse or 
molestation. 

I became aware of the need for Fed- 
eral legislation because of the work of 
Patty Wetterling and her colleagues on 
the Minnesota Governor's Task Force 
on Missing Children. Because of their 
efforts, my home State enacted a law 
establishing the registration require- 
ment. Twenty-one other States require 
registration, and even more States are 
considering similar legislation. 

Unfortunately, it is too easy for of- 
fenders to avoid these State laws, by 


moving to a State that does not have a 
registration requirement or by slipping 
through the cracks of a State system. 
We need a coordinated National and . 
State system — one that will provide 
interstate access to information that 
will help local law enforcement prevent 
and respond to horrible crimes against 
children. 

The danger facing American children 
is horrifying. Sexual crimes against 
children are more pervasive than we 
would like to believe. And there is evi- 
dence that the people who commit 
these offenses repeat their crimes 
again and again. 

ChildHelp USA estimates that 1 in 3 
girls and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually 
abused or victimized before age 18. 
More than half— 54 percent — of sexually 
abused children are victimized before 
age 7. and 84 percent are younger than 
12 years old. 

Two-thirds of reported nonfamily 
child abductions involve sexual as- 
sault. Of the 2.4 million reported cases 
of child abuse in 1989. 380,000 involved 
sexual abuse. These statistics seem 
high, but child molestation is actually 
one of the most underreported crimes- 
only 1 to 10 percent of these crimes are 
ever disclosed. 

The tragedy of sexual abuse and mo- 
lestation of children is compounded by 
the fact that child sex offenders tend to 
be serial offenders. A National Insti- 
tute of Mental Health study found that 
the typical offender molests an average 
of 117 children. Offenders who attack 
young boys molest an average of 281. A 
study of imprisoned offenders found 
that 74 percent had one or more prior 
convictions for a sex offense against a 
child. 

There is evidence that the behavior 
of child sex offenders is repetitive to 
the point of compulsion. In fact, one 
State prison psychologist has observed 
that V sex offenders against children 
have \,he same personality characteris- 
tics as serial killers. 

Sex offenders against children are 
not only repeat offenders, but they also 
tend to be dangerous and violent. The 
Justice Department has reported that 
over 85 percent of nonfamiy abductions 
involved force and over 75 percent in- 
volved a weapon. Of the homicides that 
occur from stranger abductions, almost 
40 percent involved rape or another 
sexual offense, and those are only the 
cases in which the circumstances were 
known. 

Until we can develop comprehensive 
sex offender treatment programs with 
proven results, we must act to protect 
American children from victimization. 

Under the Jacob Wetterling bill, the 
type of crimes that would trigger the 
registration requirement include the 
kidnaping or false imprisonment of a 
minor, criminal sexual conduct toward 
a minor, solicitation of minors to en- 
gage in sexual conduct, the use of mi- 
nors in a sexual performance, or the so- 


12058 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


licitation of minors to practice pros- 
titution. 

Under the Jacob Wetterling bill, a 
registration requirement would be trig- 
gered by the conviction of a sexual 
crime against a child. After the of- 
fender is released from prison, paroled, 
or placed on supervised release, the of- 
fender will be informed of the duty to 
register a current address with law en- 
forcement for the next 10 years. 

Each time the offender moves, the 
new address must be reported within 10 
days. This information will be entered 
into State law enforcement and Na- 
tional Crime Information Center com- 
puter networks, to be used only for law 
enforcement purposes. 

To ensure that offenders are comply- 
ing with the registration requirement, 
a nonforwardable verification form will 
be sent to the offender's last registered 
address each year. Failing to return 
the form within 10 days would violate 
the law unless the offender could offer 
a valid reason for failing to respond. 

The Jacob Wetterling bill came very 
close to becoming law last year. It was 
included in both the Democratic and 
Republican crime bills, which were 
held hostage by other issues toward the 
end of the 102d Congress. Because of 
support that has been expressed on 
both sides of the aisle and in both 
houses of Congress, I am confident that 
the Jacob Wetterling bill will become 
law during this session of Congress. 

Mr. President, during the difficult 
time since Jacobs abduction, Jerry 
and Patty Wetterling have channeled 
their grief into efforts to protect Amer- 
ican children and bring hope into peo- 
ple's lives. The Jacob Wetterling bill is 
an extension of Jacob's hope — the hope 
that somebody every American child 
can grow up safe and loved; and pro- 
tected from those who would rob them 
of their happiness. 

Mr. President, this week should re- 
mind us that our Nation's most pre- 
cious resource is also our most vulner- 
able one. I hope that this body will act 
quickly to enact the Jacob Wetterling 
bill and stop the victimization of 
American children. 

Madam President, I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill. 
S. 1069, be printed in the Record. 

There being no objection, the bill was 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as 
follows: 

S. 1069 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the •Jacob 
Wetterling Crimes Against Children Reg- 
istration Act". 

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMEMT OF PROGRAM. 

(a) In Gener.\l.— 

(1) State guidelines.— The Attorney Gen- 
eral shall establish guidelines for State pro- 
grams requiring any person who is convicted 
of a criminal offense against a victim who is 
a minor to register a current address with a 


designated State law enforcement agency for 
10 years after release from prison, being 
placed on parole, or being placed on super- 
vised release. 

(2) Definition.— For purposes of this sub- 
section, the term 'criminal offense against a 
victim who is a minor" includes— 

(A) kidnapping of a minor, except by a non- 
custodial parent: 

(B) false imprisonment of a minor, except 
by a noncustodial parent; 

(C) criminal sexual conduct toward a 
minor; 

(D) solicitation of minors to engage in sex- 
ual conduct; 

(E) use of minors in a sexual performance: 
or 

(F) solicitation of minors to practice pros- 
titution. 

(b) Registration Reqlike.ment Upon Re- 
lease. Parole, or Supervised Release.— An 
approved State registration program estab- 
lished by this section shall contain the fol- 
lowing requirements: 

(1) Notification.— If a person who is re- 
quired to register under this section is re- 
leased from prison, paroled, or placed on su- 
pervised release, a State prison officer 
shall— 

(A) inform the person of the duty to reg- 
ister; 

(B> inform the person that if the person 
changes residence address, the person shall 
give the new address to a designated State 
law enforcement agency in writing within 10 
days; 

(C) obtain a fingerprint card and photo- 
graph of the person if these have not already 
been obtained in connection with the offense 
that triggers registration; and 

(D) require the person to read and sign a 
form stating that the duty of the person to 
register under this section has been ex- 
plained. 

(2) Transfer of information to state and 
THE NCic— The officer shall, within 3 days 
after receipt of information under paragraph 
(1). forward it to a designated State law en- 
forcement agency. The State law enforce- 
ment agency shall immediately enter the in- 
formation into the State law enforcement 
system and National Crime Information Cen- 
ter computer networks and notify the appro- 
priate law enforcement agency having juris- 
diction where the person expects to reside. 

(3) Annual verification.— On each anni- 
versary of a person's initial registration date 
during the period in which the person is re- 
quired to register under this section, the des- 
ignated State law enforcement agency shall 
mail a nonforwardable verification form to 
the last reported address of the person. The 
person shall mail the verification form to 
the officer within 10 days after receipt of the 
form. The verification form shall be signed 
by the person, and state that the person still 
resides at the address last reported to the 
designated State law enforcement agency. If 
the person fails to mail the verification form 
to the designated State law enforcement 
agency within 10 days after receipt of the 
form, the person shall be in violation of this 
section unless the person proves that the 
person has not changed his or her residence 
address. 

(4) Notification of local law enforce- 
ment agencies of changes in address.— Any 
change of address by a person required to 
register under this section reported to the 
designated State law enforcement agency 
shall immediately be reported to the appro- 
priate law enforcement agency having juris- 
diction where the person is residing. 

(c) Registr.^tion for 10 Years.— A person 
required to register under this section shall 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12059 


continue to comply with this section until 10 
years have elapsed since the person was re- 
leased from imprisonment, parole, or super- 
vised release. 

(d) Penalty— A person required to register 
under this section who violates any require- 
ment of a State program established by this 
section shall be subject to criminal penalties 
in such State. It is the sense of Congress that 
such penalties should include at least 6 
months imprisonment. 

(e) Private Data— The information pro- 
vided under this section is private data on 
individuals and may be used for law enforce- 
ment purposes, including confidential back- 
ground checks by child care services provid- 
ers. 

SEC. 3. STATE CO.MPLIANCE. 

(a) COMPLIA.NCE D.\te.— Each State shall 
have 3 years from the date of the enactment 
of this Act in which to implement the provi- 
sions of this Act. 

(b) Ineligibility for Funds.— The alloca- 
tion of funds under section 506 of title I of 
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3756) received by a 
State not complying with the provisions of 
this section 3 years after the date of enact- 
ment of this Act shall be reduced by 25 per- 
cent and the unallocated funds shall be re- 
allocated to the States in compliance with 
this section. 


By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and 
Mr. Stevens): 

S. 1070. A bill to provide that certain 
politically appointed Federal officers 
may not receive cash awards for a cer- 
tain period during a Presidential elec- 
tion year, to prohibit cash awards to 
Executive Schedule officers, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs. 
banning bonuses for political appointees 
• Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I 
am introducing legislation to ban bo- 
nuses to political appointees in the ex- 
ecutive branch for the 6-month period 
at the end of an administration and to 
ban bonuses completely for the very 
top level officials — Executive Schedule 
I-V. I am pleased that my colleague. 
Senator Stevens, has asked to be 
added as a cosponsor of this legislation. 

The need for this legislation was 
amply demonstrated by spate. of mid- 
night bonuses awarded to such officials 
at the close of the Bush administra- 
tion. While in 1991, 50 bonuses were 
awarded to this class of Federal em- 
ployees; in 1992, at the end of the Bush 
administration, that figure rose to 133. 
While this increase does not conclu- 
sively prove that the bonus system was 
abused, it certainly raises questions 
about the purpose of these bonuses — es- 
pecially given the number of top-level 
political officials who received them — 
and creates an appearance of political 
favoritism. 

President Clinton directed the Office 
of Personnel Management [0PM] to 
conduct a review of these bonuses and 
report back to him. The review looked 
at monetary awards during the Presi- 
dential transition period which was de- 
fined as October 1992 through January 
1993. OPM's initial report was released 


in late March. The findings of the re- 
port are quite compelling. The report 
states: 

In brief, we found that there was a signifi- 
cant increase in the number of awards grant- 
ed to political appointees during the transi- 
tion period, creating at least the appearance 
that they were granted for reasons other 
than recognition of benefit to the Govern- 
ment. While technical procedures were fol- 
lowed, we believe the spirit and purpose of 
the awards program was evaded, and that ad- 
ditional safeguards are needed. 

0PM has indicated that they are 
going to follow up on this initial re- 
view with a more comprehensive study 
of the bonus system in the Federal 
Government. It is my understanding 
that OPM does not yet have a time 
frame for the completion of this com- 
prehensive study, but I urge that they 
move quickly to answer the questions 
regarding the integrity of the Federal 
bonus system. Mr. President, I ask that 
the executive summary of the OPM re- 
port from which I quoted and a chart 
which lists the bonuses awarded by 
agency be included in the Record im- 
mediately following my remarks. 

The legislation I am introducing 
today is an important first step in an 
effort to reassess and revise the Fed- 
eral Government's bonus system to en- 
sure that bonuses are not merely re- 
wards for political loyalty but for ef- 
fective governing and a true commit- 
- ment to public service. As it now 
stands, the waters have been muddied 
by the bonuses awarded during the 
final months of the Bush administra- 
tion, and the integrity of the bonus 
system has been weakened. 

The bonuses my bill addresses are 
known as superior accomplishment 
awards. These are designed to award 
one-time efforts that result in tangible 
or intangible benefits to the Govern- 
ment. They can be awarded at any 
time, to anyone in the executive 
branch including political appointees, 
and, unlike Presidential Rank Awards 
or performance awards — two other 
types of bonuses for executive branch 
employees — they do not have strict 
guidelines as to eligibility, amount or 
justification. Therefore, they are the 
most subject to abuse. 

The legislation would place a 6- 
month ban on these superior accom- 
plishment awards from June 1 prior to 
a Presidential election to the following 
January 20. This would put an end to 
awarding bonuses at a time that cre- 
ates the appearance that they are re- 
wards for political loyalties at the end 
of an administration rather than per- 
formance. 

The complete ban on such awards for 
the very top-level officials in the exec- 
utive branch codifies current OPM pol- 
icy regarding the award of cash bo- 
nuses to those who are in positions 
which require Senate confirmation. In- 
dividuals in the Executive Schedule are 
making salaries which range from 
$108,200 to $148,400 and serve in very 


high-profile positions. Cash bonuses are 
inappropriate at this level. As OPM 
says in its guidance on this matter: 

Honorary recognition is considered appro- 
priate in light of the honor, salaries, and per- 
quisites associated with such positions, and 
advisable because of the potential for ad- 
verse publicity that could result if such offi- 
cials were to receive significant cash awards. 

OPM indicates that at the close of 
the previous administration, this pol- 
icy guidance was ignored in several in- 
stances. My legislation would enforce 
this guidance as law. 

At a time when there is a heightened 
sensitivity to the need to restore faith 
in the integrity of our Federal Govern- 
ment, it makes sense to make appro- 
priate changes in our bonus system to 
eliminate any opportunity for abuse. 
Bonuses can be an effective manage- 
ment tool, but they become counter- 
productive if there is no connection to 
real accomplishments or if the bonus is 
perceived to be given for political re- 
ward. 

An issue my bill does not address, 
but which I also believe needs review 
and revision is the award of bonuses to 
inspector generals [IG's]. This was an 
additional issue that was raised by the 
OPM report. OPM found that nine IG's 
received bonuses during the final days 
of the previous administration. These 
bonuses were granted by the heads of 
the agencies the IG's are responsible 
for overseeing. IG's play one of the 
most significant roles in our efforts to 
increase the effectiveness, efficiency 
and the integrity of the Government. 
Bonuses to IG's are highly questionable 
when they are authorized by the very 
person over whom the IG holds over- 
sight responsibility. The independence 
and integrity of IG's must be without 
question, and that is why I had origi- 
nally planned to include a provision in 
this legislation to place a complete ban 
on bonuses to IG's. 

However, this is an issue which 
greatly concerns Senator Glenn as the 
chairman of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, and I recently learned that 
his staff is working closely with an in- 
formal task force of the President's 
Council on Integrity and Efficiency 
[PCIE] headed by the Director of the 
Office of Government Ethics, Stephen 
Potts, which is focusing specifically on 
the issue of bonuses to IG's. This task 
force will look at all the bonuses cur- 
rently available to IG's and what the 
stipulations are as to their award and 
disbursement. They have been directed 
to make specific recommendations as 
to the appropriateness of awards to 
IG's and to devise alternative options 
for authorization of bonuses to IG's. I 
have, therefore, decided to not address 
bonuses for IG's in this bill and will 
await the recommendation of the PCIE 
task force. 

Once again, I think a review of the 
entire bonus system is a good idea, and 
I am pleased that OPM will be under- 


taking this effort. This legislation 
seeks to strike at the heart of two 
problems which were identified by the 
OPM report. I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill and an executive summary 
be printed in the Record. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

S. 1070 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled. 

SECTION 1. PROHIBmON ON CASH AWARDS TO 
CERTAIN FEDERAL OFFICERS. 

(a) In General —Chapter 45 of title 5. 
United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after section 4507 the following new sections: 
"§ 4508. Limitation of awards during a Presi- 
dential election year 

■•(a) For purposes of this section, the 
term — 

"(1) Presidential election period' means 
any period beginning on June 1 in a calendar 
year in which the popular election of the 
President occurs, and ending on January 20 
following the date of such election: and 

••(2) 'senior politically appointed officer' 
means any officer who during a Presidential 
election period serves— 

"(A) in a Senior Executive Service position 
and is not a career appointee as defined 
under section 3132(a)(4); or 

•■(B) in a position of a confidential or pol- 
icy-determining character under schedule C 
of subpart C of part 213 of title 5 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations. 

■■(b) No senior politically appointed officer 
may receive an award under the provisions of 
this subchapter during a Presidential elec- 
tion period. 

"§4509. Prohibition of cash award to Executive 
Schedule officers 

•■No officer may receive a cash award 
under the provisions of this subchapter, if 
such officer serves in an Executive Schedule 
position under subchapter II of chapter 53.". 
(b) Technical and Conforming amend- 
.MENT.— The table of sections for chapter 45 of 
title 5. United States Code, is amended by in- 
serting after the item relating to section 4507 
the following: 

■4508. Limitation of awards during a Presi- 
dential election year. 
■4509. Prohibition of cash award to Execu- 
tive Schedule officers. ". 

Executive Summary 

In response to the President's direction, 
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 
conducted a review of monetary awards 
granted during the Presidential transition 
period. 

The President expressed concern that the 
granting of large monetary awards as the 
former Administration dei>arted raised dis- 
turbing questions about their timing and 
amounts. The review focused on awards 
granted for superior accomplishment (also 
called special acts) granted at the head- 
quarters of major departments and agencies. 
purpose of the review 

OPM's review focused on two questions: 
whether the awards were granted consistent 
with established criteria and procedures and 
whether new or revised safeguards are nec- 
essary. 

findings of the review 

There was a substantial increase in the 
number of awards given to political ap- 
pointees during the transition period as com- 


J 


12060 


\ 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12061 


pared to the same months the year before 
(from 49 to 133). The number and dollar value 
of awards granted by each agency reviewed 
during the relevant periods are presented in 
attachment 5 to the report. 

Current safeguards clearly were not ade- 
quate to prevent misuse of flexibilities in the 
awards program. The political leadership at 
several agencies used these flexibilities to 
grant awards to political appointees that 
create the appearance they were given as 
•■political favors' rather than for their in- 
tended purpose. 

Six of the 23 agencies reviewed accounted 
for two-thirds of awards to political ap- 
pointees. These were Energy, Education. Ag- 
riculture. Justice. Small Business Adminis- 
tration, and Labor. 

Technical procedures were followed, but 
the evidence indicates that the purpose of" 
the award program was evaded. For example, 
the justification on a large number of awards 
was questionable. Superior accomplishment 
awards should not be given for the perform- 
ance of regular duties, particularly given the 
level of the employees involved. Also, there 
is an indication that some of these awards 
were given as a means to avoid the limita- 
tions on other award categories. 

The review revealed that awards were 
given to Inspectors General in five agencies. 


While the awards were legal and in line with 
previous awards in non-transition periods, 
we believe the practice of giving awards to 
IG's is problematic because it could call into 
question the integrity and independence of 
their work. 

■The Department of Justice granted sev- 
eral awards to Presidential appointees. 
These awards contravene explicit 0PM guid- 
ance in Chapter 451 of the Federal Personnel 
Manual." ' 

SCOPE OF THE REVIEW 

The Government gives thousands of awards 
to its employees each year. Of all these, two 
types have the greatest cash value: ■superior 
accomplishment" and "performance" 
awards. This review focused on the superior 
accomplishment awards because, although a 
small percentage of the total, these are the 
ones most likely to be abused— agencies have 
broad discretion in making them and they 
can be given at any time. 

The larger group of awards are perform- 
ance awards. They are based on written 
standards, given on a scheduled basis, and 
approved only after a multiple review proc- 
ess. Given the volume of these awards, a 
manual examination would be a huge and 
costly undertaking and infeasible within our 
timeframe. However, when the automated 
awards data for FY 92 is compiled on a Gov- 


ernmentwide basis later this year, we will be 
able to conduct a parallel examination to see 
if our concerns with superior accomplish- 
ment awards also apply to performance 
awards. 

CONCLUSION 

Clearly the flexibility granted agencies 
under the awards program must be exercised 
responsibly and only for the purpose for 
which the awards are intended. Our review- 
indicates that this was not the case in all 
agencies during the recent transition period. 
Since the awards program is a critical part 
of the Federal performance management sys- 
tem, used to recognize the outstanding con- 
tributions of our many fine employees, main- 
taining its integrity in both fact and appear- 
ance is of great importance. 

The report contains a number of options 
for providing greater safeguards for the 
awards program in the future. OPM will far- 
ther develop these options and take steps to 
monitor the program more closely. In addi- 
tion, given the importance of the awards pro- 
gram to the Federal service and to the 
public's perception of it. we believe the is- 
sues surfaced in the report would also be ap- 
propriate for consideration in the context of 
the National Performance Review. 


SUPERIOR ACCOMPLISHMENT AWARDS TO POLITICAL EMPLOYEES IN THE WASHINGTON. DC. MSA 


Ajricuitur! 
fcr Force 
Army 

Commerce 
DoO 

EHucatKin 
Enerjy 
EPA 
FEMA 
CSA 
HHS 
HUD 
Intefiof 
Justice' 
LalM< 
MSA 
Navy 
OM 
S8A 
Slate 

TianspwTation 
Treasury 
Veterans Attaits 
Totals 


Octoliet 

1 199l-)jnuaiy 31 

Oclotwr 1 1992-Januar> 31 


199? 



1993 


Num. 

tier 

Amount 

Average 

Num. 
Her 

Amount 

A»eraje 


tis.soo 

S2 214 

14 

S31S00 

$2 344 
























?00 

100 


8129 

1626 







6500 

3250 


946 

946 

IB 

27 924 

1551 


100 

100 

23 

110 MS 

4815 

13 

38495 

2 961 


30 000 

4 286 

1 

999 

999 


5500 

2750 


2146 

53/ 







5 4/5 

1369 


11800 

3,933 


3.200 

106' 


120O0 

1,714 


600 

300 


3 COO 

1500 


N/A 

N/A 

12 

336S0 

2804 


150 

ISO 

10 

28000 

2800 












n 

n 


14 000 

4667 


5O0 

500 


2 335 

1168 


2,000 

2000 

11 

35 500 

3227 












6 

32.500 

S4U 


19 700 

2189 








1650 

825 








4 000 

2000 

SO 

tl02 886 

i?058 

133 

t385 933 

J2 902 


*A(eiity siitmission to CPOF incomnlete • 

By Mr. COCHRAN: 
S. 1071. A bill to provide that certain 
civil defense employees and employees 
of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency may be eligible for certain pub- 
lic safety officers death benefits, and 
for other purposes: to the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs. 

PUBLIC S.^FETY OFFICER.S BENEFITS .^CT 

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President. I am 
introducing legislation today to amend 
the Public Safety Officers Benefits Act 
to include civil defense employees and 
employees of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency in the coverage of 
the act. 

The Public Safety Officers Benefits 
Act provides benefits to eligible survi- 
vors of a public safety officer whose 


death is the direct result of a trau- 
matic injury sustained in the line of 
duty. The act also provides the same 
benefit to a public safety officer who 
has been permanently and totally dis- 
abled as the direct result of a cata- 
strophic personal injury sustained in 
the line of duty. 

State and local law enforcement offi- 
cers and fire fighters. Federal law en- 
forcement officers and fire fighters, 
and Federal, State, and local rescue 
squads and ambulance crews are all 
covered by the Act. but civil defense 
employees and FEMA employees are 
not covered. 

This legislation will extend coverage 
for the Act to civil defense employees 
and employees of FEMA. In the unfor- 


tunate event of tragedy, this amend- 
ment will ensure that the families of 
civil defense employees will have ac- 
cess to the same benefits that other 
public safety officers have. 

The new Director of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, 
James Lee Witt, at his confirmation 
hearing said that civil defense employ- 
ees put their lives on the line just 
about every time they respond to an 
event. I am hopeful the administration 
will support the passage of this bill. 


By Mr. BRADLEY: 
S. 1072. A bill to amend the Social Se- 
curity Act to provide assistance to 
States in providing services to support 
informal caregivers of individuals with 


'OPM recommends that: ■Presidential appointees 
whose appointments require Senate confirmation re- 
ceive honorary, rather than monetary awards. Hon- 


orary recoiniition is considered appropriate in light 
of the honor, salaries, and perquisites associated 
with such positions, and advisable because of the po- 


tential for adverse publicity that could result if 
such officials were to receive significant cash 
awards." 


functional limitations; to the Commit- 
tee on Finance. 

THE FAMILY CAREGIVER SUPPORT ACT OF 1993 

• Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President. I in- 
troduce legislation that will bolster 
families that face the daily burden of 
caring for loved ones by providing res- 
pite care for caregivers. 

There are over 2 million severely im- 
paired adults and thousands of disabled 
children living in communities 
throughout this country who need con- 
stant care with the most basic func- 
tions of life — eating, bathing, dressing. 
The people who are the frontline pro- 
viders of this daily care are a moving 
testament to the strength of families, 
and provide a glaring example of where 
Federal policy has behaved shortsight- 
edly and fallen short of the needs of its 
citizens. 

Nursing homes make only a small 
contribution to long-term care. Four 
out of five Americans with functional 
disabilities are cared for not in institu- 
tions but by family members at home. 
It would cost the American people over 
$50 billion to provide this daily care in 
institutions. But these ■ family 
caregivers don't want their mothers, 
fathers, daughters, sons, sisters, or 
brothers in an institution. They want 
to keep them home and they can keep 
them in their communities with a lit- 
tle support. 

But family caregiving often requires 
Herculean physical and emotional en- 
ergy. The loved ones who provide this 
care have the toughest job I've ever 
seen: They're on call 24 hours a day, 7 
days a week; they face enormous 
stress; they need special skills and 
physical strength. They earn nothing— 
they do it out of love. Caring for loved 
ones saves thousands of dollars in nurs- 
ing home costs. But all too often the 
demands of daily care extract an invis- 
ible cost. The demands can become too 
much, and under the stress of other 
family and personal demands, the 
bonds of family love begin to fray. 

For a care provider who needs just a 
little help or time for themselves — 
maybe a chance to shop for food, go to 
the bank or even a movie, or take a 
sick child to the doctor, it seems 
there's nowhere to turn for help. In the 
worst case, when the stress is too much 
to handle, some people simply and 
sadly abandon their dependent relative. 

Last year Americans were shocked to 
learn that an elderly man with Alz- 
heimer's disease had been abandoned at 
a racetrack in Idaho. Unable to care for 
himself, he was left there by a family 
member. Experts have not documented 
exactly how often elderly abandonment 
occurs, but sadly it appears the number 
of cases is growing. 

Mr. President, if we as a Nation are 
to have any effective long-term care 
strategy, it will have to build on and 
support this valuable network of fam- 
ily caregivers. The fears of disability 
and dependency can be softened by the 

rt!M).W ()— i»7 \ol, 139 (Pt, 9) 3 


love and care of one's family. The pri- 
mary family caregivers can and should 
be bolstered and supported in their de- 
sire to keep their loved ones at home 
and/or in the community. 

Even a minimal amount of respite — 
time out from the unremitting tasks of 
providing for basic human needs — can 
head off the disintegration of the fam- 
ily unit or the personal health status 
of the primary caregiver. Since each 
circumstance is different, the legisla- 
tion would offer a range of options. One 
family, for example, could choose adult 
day care for a few days of assistance a 
week; another family might choose to 
receive a half a day a week of home- 
maker services or assistance from a 
visiting nurse. The services would only 
cost about $7 a day. compared to as 
much as $70 a day for nursing home 
care. 

I know first-hand that respite care 
can provide that needed helping hand 
to families that face the daily task of 
caring for loved ones. I've heard many 
touching stories from my home State, 
from the New Jersey Respite Care Pilot 
Program that I initiated in 1988. One 
82-year-old woman was given a week of 
care for her 103-year-old mother so that 
she could attend her granddaughter's 
wedding in California. A recently wid- 
owed 68-year-old woman was able to at- 
tend her son's graduation by obtaining 
caregiver services for her 87-year-old 
bedridden mother and her 46-year-old 
paraplegic son. 

This program was enormously suc- 
cessful, and yet it could barely keep up 
with the demand. New Jersey's success 
should be the Nation's success. Encour- 
aged by the New Jerseys success sto- 
ries, I believe we should make respite 
care available nationally. 

The Clinton administration is cur- 
rently embroiled in developing a plan 
to reform the Nation's health care sys- 
tem, and I applaud and wholeheartedly 
support his efforts. But no health care 
reform plan could be considered com- 
plete unless it began to address the 
long-term care crisis we have in this 
country. This bill is the first of many 
steps we should take in our quest of re- 
forming our long-term care system, 
which must be seen as part of our total 
health care system. 

Mr. President, it's time to get our 
priorities back in order. Let's help fam- 
ilies help their loved ones and reward 
the values that keep American families 
together. This legislation establishes a 
cost-effective alternative to institu- 
tionalization. It is intergenerational in 
scope. And the beneficiary is not only 
the individual giving the care, but the 
family member receiving the care as 
well. If there ever was an example of 
how a little bit goes a long way, it is 
here. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this bill. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- 
sent that the text of the bill and a 
summary be printed in the Record. 


There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

S. 1072 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentc^iies of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, 
SECnCIN 1. SHORT TITLE. 

Thisl Act may be cited as the "Family 
Caregiver Support Act of 1993" 

SEC. 2. iFAMILY CAREGIVER SUPPORT PROGRAM 
I ESTABLISHED. 

(a) In General,— The Social Security Act 
(42 US.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding 
at the end thereof the following new title: 
TITLE XXI— GRANTS TO STATES FOR 
FAMILY CAREGIVER SUPPORT PRO- 
GRAMS 

■ PURPOSE OF TITLE; AUTHORIZATION OF 
APPROPRIATIONS 

"Sec 2101. For the purpose of enabling 
each State to furnish services to support in- 
formal caregivers of individuals with func- 
tional limitations by providing ser\'ices de- 
signed to facilitate and strengthen informal 
support systems to help maintain individuals 
with functional limitations within the com- 
munity, there are authorized to be appro- 
priated for each fiscal year such sums as 
may be necessary to carry out the purposes 
of this title. The sums made available under 
this section shall be used for making pay- 
ments to States which have submitted, and 
had approved by the Secretary. State plans 
for family caregiver support services. 

■STATE PLANS FOR FAMILY CAREGIVER 
SUPPORT SERVICES 

■Sec. 2102. A State plan for family 
caregiver support services must^— 

"(1) provide that it shall be in effect in all 
political subdivisions of the State, and if ad- 
ministered by them, be mandatory upon 
them: 

■■(2) provide for financial participation by 
the State equal to not less than 50 percent of 
the administrative costs of operating the 
program in the State: 

■■(3) provide either for the establishment or 
designation of a single State agency or agen- 
cies (such agency may be the same agency 
established or designated under section 1902 
of this Act) to administer or supervise the 
administration of the plan in coordination 
with home and community-based services 
provided under title XIX of this Act: 

■■(4) describe the steps that will be taken to 
ensure that all State government agencies 
responsible for the pro\'ision of family 
caregiver support services funded under this 
title with other Federal or State agencies or 
both on behalf of individuals with functional 
limitations and their caregivers shall be in- 
cluded in the development of the State plan 
so that all such services are coordinated 
with all other types of services and benefits 
such individuals and their caregivers may be 
receiving (or are eligible to receive): 

■■(5) describe the steps to be taken to en- 
sure equitable access to family caregiver 
support services funded under this title for 
individuals of all ages with functional limi- 
tations and their caregivers, including indi- 
viduals who have cognitive, mental, devel- 
opmental, physical, sensory, or other impair- 
ments that meet the criteria of section 
2104(b)(1): 

"(6) describe the manner in which family 
caregiver support services funded under this 
title will be organized, delivered, and coordi- 
nated, statewide and within the various lo- 
calities bf the State, in order to achieve the 
objectivfes specified in subparagraphs (4) and 
(5) of this subsection: 


12062 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


■■(7) specify the procedures used in notify- 
ing and obtaining input on the contents of 
the State plan from non-governmental orga- 
nizations and Individuals with an interest in 
the welfare of individuals with functional 
limitations; 

■■(8) provide that the State agency or agen- 
cies — 

"(A) make a determination of the need for 
family caregiver support services for the in- 
dividual with functional limitations: 

•■(B) establish quality assurance for the de- 
livery of family caregiver support services. 
Including evaluation of individual and fam- 
ily satisfaction with the services provided; 

••(C) establish a family caregiver support 
plan for each individual with functional lim- 
itations for services under this title, and pro- 
vide for periodic review and revision as nec- 
essary; and 

••(D) establish reimbursement levels for 
family caregiver support services; 

"(9) provide that family caregiver support 
services funded under this title to an individ- 
ual with functional limitations shall not 
supplant services otherwise provided to such 
individual for which such individual is eligi- 
ble under titles XVIII or XIX of this Act or 
under any other public or private program; 

'•(10) provide — 

••(A) that no copayment shall be required 
for individuals with functional limitations 
with incomes below 200 percent of the in- 
come official poverty line (as determined by 
the Office of Management and Budget and re- 
vised annually in accordance with section 
673<2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1981); and 

■•(B) that a copayment shall be required on 
a sliding scale basis (as determined by the 
State) for individuals with functional limita- 
tions with incomes in excess of 200 percent of 
such income line; and 

••(11) provide for making family caregiver 
support services available, including at least 
the care and services described in paragraphs 
(1) through (4) of section 2104(a) to all indi- 
viduals with functional limitations. 

•■PAYMENT TO STATES 

•Sec. 2103. (a)(1) The Secretary (except as 
otherwise provided in this section) shall pay 
to each State which has a plan approved 
under this title, for each quarter, beginning 
with the quarter commencing January 1. 
1994— 

••(A) an amount equal to 100 percent of the 
total amount expended during such quarter 
as family caregiver support services under 
the State plan subject to the applicable Fed- 
eral payment limitation described in para- 
graph (2); and 

■■(B) an amount equal to 50 percent of so 
much of the sums expended during such 
quarter as found necessary by the Secretary 
for the proper and efficient administration of 
the State plan (including costs of needs de- 
termination and care planning). 

•■(2)(A) The applicable Federal payment 
limitation described in this paragraph is 
S2.400 per calendar year per individual with 
functional limitations, reduced by the offset, 
if any. described in subparagraph (B). 

■■(B) The total Federal payment to any 
State for each individual with functional 
limitations for a calendar year shall be re- 
duced by the amount of any copayment paid 
by such an individual for family caregiver 
support services funded under this title in 
accordance with paragraph (10) of section 
2102. 

•■(b) No payment shall be made under this 
title with respect to any amount expended 
for family caregiver support services in a 
calendar quarter for any individual with 


functional limitations with an income in ex- 
cess of $75,000 per year. 

"DEFINITIONS 

"Sec. 2104. (a) For purposes of this title, 
the term ■family caregiver support services' 
means care and services in the home, or in 
the community, provided on a temporary, 
short term, intermittent, or emergency basis 
to support a caregiver in caring for an indi- 
vidual with functional limitations, includ- 
ing— 

■•(1) companion services; 

■•(2) homemaker services; 

■•(3) personal assistance; 

•■(4) day services in the community; 

•■(5) temporary care in accredited or li- 
censed facilities (admission to a hospital or 
nursing home for out-of-home care for a brief 
stay); and 

■■(6) such other services, as specified in 
State plan. 

■■(b)(1) For purposes of this title, an indi- 
vidual with functional limitations'— 

'■(A) is an individual 18 years of age or over 
who — 

••(i) cannot perform (without substantial 
human assistance, including supervision) at 
least 3 of the activities of daily living de- 
scribed in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of 
paragraph (2); or 

•■(ii) needs substantial human assistance or 
supervision because of cognitive or other 
mental impairment that — 

••(I) impedes ability to function; or 

••(II) causes behavior that poses a serious 
health or safety hazard to such individual or 
others; or 

••(B) is a child who is receiving disability 
payments, or would be eligible for such pay- 
ments, but for the income or resource limita- 
tions considered for determining eligibility 
under title XVI of this Act. 

••(2) The activities of daily living described 
in this paragraph are — 

•■(A) toileting; 

"IB) eating; 

••(C) transferring; 

••(D) dressing; and 

••(E> bathing. 

••(c) For purposes of this title, the term 
•caregiver' means a spouse, parent, child, rel- 
ative or other person who — 

■•(A) has primary responsibility (as defined 
by the Secretary) of providing care for one 
individual with functional limitations; 

■■(B) does not receive financial remunera- 
tion for providing such care for such individ- 
ual; and 

••(C) who has provided such care to such in- 
dividual for a period of not less than 3 
months. 

••(d) For purposes of this title, the term 
•family caregiver support plan' means a writ- 
ten plan, developed in cooperation with the 
caregiver and the individual with functional 
limitations to reflect their choices and pref- 
erences for the type, frequency, and duration 
of family caregiver support services to be 
provided under the plan. 

■•MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT 

•Sec. 2105. states receiving payments 
under section 2103 must maintain current 
levels of funding for family caregiver support 
services to individuals with functional limi- 
tations and their caregivers in order to be el- 
igible to continue to receive payments for 
such services under this title.". 

(b) Effective Date.— The amendment 
made by subsection (a) shall become effec- 
tive with respect to services furnished on or 
after January 1. 1994. 


Slmmary of the Family Caregiver Support 
act OF 1993 

The Family Caregiver Support Act estab- 
lishes a program which bolsters and 
strengthens informal support systems to 
help ensure that the individuals with func- 
tional limitations are maintained in the 
community as long as possible. When fami- 
lies or friends finally turn to formal commu- 
nity agencies, it usually represents a last- 
ditch attempt either to forestall institu- 
tional placement or to avoid the physical or 
mental breakdown of the family caregiver. 
This act will lighten the ••caregiver burden"; 
the social, emotional, and financial costs as- 
sociated with caregiving. 

Purpose: This program will support and 
sustain unpaid primary caregivers of persons 
with functional limitations of all ages by 
providing temporary relief from the stresses 
and demands of daily caregiving. 

Eligibility: The services are available for 
persons with functional limitations who re- 
quired assistance with the three out of five 
activities of daily living (dressing, eating, 
toileting, bathing, transferring) or need sub- 
stantial supervision, as well as. children de- 
clared disabled through SSI. 

Services may not supplant or duplicate 
services otherwise available to the eligible 
person under Medicare, Medicaid or private 
insurance. 

Services: The services provided for the 
caregiver may include any of the following 
on a planned or emergency basis: Companion 
services (non-medical); Homemaker services; 
Personal assistance (to assist with provision 
of personal needs); Adult Day Care (social 
and medical); or other respite services such 
as temporary care in accredited/licensed hos- 
pitals or nursing homes, or peer support and 
training for caregivers. 

The eligible disabled person is entitled to 
S2400 in services per year. Persons with in- 
comes exceeding 200% of poverty must pay 
on a sliding fee scale (established by the 
states) up to a maximum benefit limit- of 
$75,000 income. 

Administrative Structure: The statute cre- 
ates a new Title XXI of the Social Security 
Act. The Federal expenditures are capped at 
$2,400 per eligible recipient and 50% of the 
Administrative costs. States are required to 
support 50% of the administrative costs, 
with a maintenance of effort provision. 


By Mr. SPECTER: 
S. 1073. A bill to extend until Decem- 
ber 31, 1994. the deadline for the State 
of Pennsylvania to submit certain pro- 
visions of a Clean air Act implementa- 
tion plan applicable to the Liberty Bor- 
ough PM-10 Nonattainment Area, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works. 
liberty borough pm-10 nonattainment area 

act of 1993 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I 
am introducing a bill to extend until 
December 31, 1994, the date required for 
the State of Pennsylvania to submit 
certain provisions of a Clean Air Act 
implementation plan applicable to the 
Liberty Borough PM-10 Nonattainment 
Area. A companion to this bill has been 
introduced by Congressman Rick 
Santorum in the House of Representa- 
tives. 

With enactment of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, Liberty Borough 
jn Allegheny County, which encom- 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


V 


12063 


passes five municipalities, was des- 
ignated a "PM-IO nonattainment" 
area. PM-10 nonattainment refers to 
unacceptable levels of inhalable partic- 
ulates. The Clean Air Act requires Al- 
legheny County to submit a State im- 
plementation plan [SIP] to comply 
with the new PM-10 standards by June 
16, 1993. Unfortunately, the Allegheny 
Health Department [ACHD] does not 
believe that it will be able to meet the 
June 16 deadline as set forth in a letter 
from ACHD to me dated May 28,, 1993, 
attached hereto. 

If a non-attainment area fails to sub- 
mit a State implementation plan, the 
law requires the sources of the particu- 
lates in the area to provide a 2:1 offset 
ratio for any new source growth. Ac- 
cording to USX, the largest steel pro- 
ducer in the area, the USX Clairton 
Coke Works in Liberty Borough is sim- 
ply unable to achieve the 2:1 offsets for 
the new coke batteries it is planning to 
build in order to meet the Clean Air 
Act's new emissions standards. These 
offsets would require them to meet 
emission standards as much as twice 
that of those now required under the 
Clean Air Act. They maintain that 
such a penalty will "adversely affect 
the long-term future of many of the 
1,600 employees currently working at 
the plant." Such a closing would also 
adversely affect 4,500 jobs in nearby 
USX facilities. Title 1, section 179, of 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 
stipulates that additional sanctions 
would inclucie the loss of Federal trans- 
portation funding assistance. 

The inability of the county to meet 
the deadline is not from lack of effort. 
According to, Ronald J. Chleboski, dep- 
uty director bureau of air pollution 
control for the Allegheny County 
Health Department, the county has 
spent $1.2 million on this project. Due 
to shortcomings in the scientific meth- 
od to map dispersion of the particu- 
lates, however, the county has not been 
able to acquire sufficient data to pre- 
pare the State implementation plan by 
June 16. 1993. as required by EPA. 
Charles Carson, vice president for envi- 
ronmental affairs at USX. points out 
that the unique geographical and mete- 
orological characteristics of the Lib- 
erty region have made it extremely dif- 
ficult to generate mathematical model- 
ing prediction required by the Clean 
Air Act. Mr. Carson's letter dated May 
28. 1993. to me is attached hereto. 

According to Mr. Chleboski. the Alle- 
gheny County Health Department will 
probably not be able to meet a second 
deadline of December 16. 1993, but by 
December 31. 1994, the bureau will have 
sufficient time to develop an attain- 
ment plan to meet the new Clean Air 
Act PM-10 standards. The ACHD letter 
inadvertently left out the December 31. 
1994. completion date, but Mr. Roger 
Westman. division manager of ACHD's 
Program Planning Division, advised 
Mr. Morrie Ruffin of my staff that the 


December 31. 1994, date could be met. 
Therefore. I consider it unreasonable to 
penalize a region and threaten the 
elimination of thousands of steel-in- 
dustry jobs to meet what has been de- 
scribed as an unrealistic schedule to 
submit the paperwork necessary to 
show compliance. Moreover. Dan Ryan, 
assistant to the regional administrator 
for EPA Region III, states to Mr. 
Ruffin of my staff that the air quality 
in the Liberty area has improved and 
that the region has been in compliance 
with EPA's current PM-10 standards 
for 28'«©nsecutive months. 

Mr. President, by extending the date 
required for the submission of the local 
State implementation plan, we will en- 
sure that the science relating to the 
dispersion of particulates in the Lib- 
erty area is accurate and meaningful. 
Moreover, it will allow the USX Corp. 
to concentrate its efforts on moderniz- 
ing its coking facilities to meet the 
new emissions standards without the 
threat of having to meet more onerous 
standards because of an unrealistic SIP 
submission schedule over which they 
have no control. 

While I would have preferred that the 
statute's timetables be precisely met, I 
believe that this extension is reason- 
able to provide for environmental pro- 
tection and maintain existing jobs. 

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to 
join me in seeking expeditious consid- 
eration of this important legislation. 

Mr. President. I ask unanimous con- 
sent that the text of the bill and addi- 
tional material be printed in the 
Record. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: , 

S. 1073 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled. 

SECnON 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINB: FOR PLAN 
SL'BMISSION 

In recognition of the unique and distinc- 
tive geographical and meteorological charac- 
teristics of the Liberty Borough PM-10 Non- 
attainment Area in Western Pennsylvania 
(encompassing Clairton. Glassport. Port Vue. 
Liberty Borough, and Lincoln), the deadline 
applicable to that area under section 
189(a)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
7513a(a)(2)(B)) (relating to the date for imple- 
mentation plan submissions for PM-10 Mod- 
erate Nonattainment Areas) shall be ex- 
tended until December 31. 1994. 

U.S. Steel. 
Pittsburgh. PA. May 28. 1993. 
Hon. ARLEN Specter, 

U.S. Senate. Senate Hart Office Building. 
Washington. DC. 

Dear Senator Specter: Thank you very 
much for your inquiries concerning the PM- 
10 non-attainment area designation under 
the Clean Air Act for the area including the 
City of Clairton and the Boroughs of Liberty. 
Lincoln, Port Vue. and Glassport in Alle- 
gheny County. This area surrounds U.S. 
Steel's Clairton Works, which is the Nation's 
largest coke-producing plant. 

The complex Monongahela Valley terrain 
in this region makes development of accu- 


rate, mathematical modeling predictions re- 
quired by the Clear Air Act extremely dif- 
ficult to develop (see Attachments 1. 2 & 3). 
The Allegheny County Bureau of Air Pollu- 
tion Control, with various consultants, has 
been working unsuccessfully for many years 
to develop an accurate model. 

In practical terms, what this means is. de- 
spite the fact that U.S. Steel Clairton Works 
has spent over $145 million over the last 5 
years, and has dramatically improved actual 
measured air quality (the plant has not exi)e- 
rienced an air exceedance in 2'-2 years), the 
••model" still predicts values well above the 
150 microgram per cubic meter (ng m^) daily 
standard. For example. Allegheny County 
Bureau of Air Pollution Control has meas- 
ured a daily value of 96 (ig m'. but modeled 
253 (ig m^— well above the standard of 150 jig 
m^. In spite of the fact that the County has 
spent over $1.2 million to develop a model, at 
this time the County does not believe that 
model is sufficiently accurate to prop>ose a 
••State Implementation Plan" to submit to 
EPA for approval.' 

It is our understanding that the EPA's po- 
sition is that the present provisions of the 
Clean Air Act mandate that it initiate statu- 
torily-prescribed sanctions in the City of 
Clairton and Liberty. Lincoln. Port Vue. and 
Glassport Boroughs area because of the 
County's inability to submit an approvable 
SIP to EPA by June 16. 1993. The sanctions 
include 2-to-l emission offsets for new con- 
struction, ineligibility for transportation 
funding, and loss of federal air program 
funds. These sanctions, if approved, will ad- 
versely impact the entire area, and poten- 
tially their high (and unnecessary) cost will 
affect the ability of U.S. Steel and other 
businesses in the area to remain competi- 
tive. 

Six of the twelve operating batteries at 
Clairton were built in the mid-1950's and ac- 
count for about 40% of current capacity. Al- 
though U.S. Steel is not currently building 
new coke oven batteries. EPA's existing in- 
terpretation of the Clean Air Act with re- 
spect to the ^position of the 2-to-l emission 
offset rule could- adversely affect the plan- 
ning, permitting, financing, and construc- 
tion of future replacement batteries at Clair- 
ton Works. Clairton Works needs to run at 
present capacity to be competitive; thus the 
inability to replace existing capacity at the 
end of its useful life has the potential to ad- 
versely effect the long-term future of many 
of the 1.600 employees currently working at 
the plant (see Attachment 4). 

Finally. U.S. Steel does not believe that 
the public fully recognizes the tremendous 
environmental clean-up efforts of U.S. Steel' 
and its 1.600 employees at Clairton Works. 
Attachments 5 through 14 contain informa- 
tion highlighting our clean-up efforts at 
Clairton Works over the last several years. 

If you have any further questions, please 
call me. U.S. Steel appreciates any assist- 
ance that you can provide on this difficult 
Clean Air Act issue. 

Very truly yours. 

Charles G. Carson III. 

Why Dispersion Modeling Is Inappropriate 
FOR PM,o Source ATTRiBfnoN in South- 
eastern Allegheny Coun-ty 
Development of cost-effective PMio control 
strategies requires accurate source attribu- 
tion. EPA recommends the use of dispersion 
models for source attribution even though 
they are typically unable to apportion 
source contributions more accurately than a 
factor of two during defined 24 hour non- 
attainment periods even under the best of 
circumstances. 


V . 


12064 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


The use of dispersion models in Southeast- 
em Allegheny County is inappropriate be- 
cause state-of-the-art models cannot handle 
the complexity of the apportionment prob- 
lem. Some reasons are: 

Dispersion Models Cannot Adequately Sim- 
ulate Secondary Particles.— Secondary par- 
ticles account for more than half of the PM,o 
on an average nonattainment day and can be 
as much as ^t of the PM.o. 

Dispersion Models Cannot Adequately Sim- 
ulate Low Wind Speed Conditions.— Most of 
the historical nonattainment days recorded 
in Southeastern Allegheny County were low 
wind speed days. Dispersion models cannot 
directly simulate these conditions. 

Dispersion Models Cannot Handle Alle- 
gheny County's Complex Terrain.— Valley 
elevations are similar to stack emission 
heights which means that impact on valley 
and plateau monitors are extremely sen- 
sitive to meteorological flow differences 
down in the valley and on the plateau. In ad- 
dition, impacts, from fugitive sources emit- 
ted in the valley cannot be accurately mod- 
eled at plateau monitoring sites such as the 
Liberty Borough monitoring site. 

Model Input Parameters Are Inadequate.— 
The simulation emission inventory is domi- 
nated by emissions that have never been 
quantified (i.e. appropriate parameters meas- 
ured on-site). Emissions during any 24 hour 
nonattainment period are unknown. The me- 
teorological monitoring network is inad- 
equate to provide the meteorological infor- 
mation necessary to model the nonattain- 
ment area. 

Evidence for the inappropriateness of dis- 
persion models for this area is provided by 
the failure to complete an SO2 SIP based on 
dispersion models even after several years of 
effort. 

U.S. Steel Clairton works. Effect of 2-i 

Offsets and Some Notable Air Quality' 

Improvements 

What will 2-1 offsets do to Clairton Works? 

Make building a replacement battery hard 
or impossible until the SIP is finally ap- 
proved. 

Clairton needs to operate at near present 
capacity to be competitive, inability to re- 
place existing capacity would strangle the 
plant. Six of the 12 operating batteries were 
built in the mid-1950's and account for about 
40 percent of current capacity. 

The irony is that a new battery would 
lower emissions significantly, but could be 
allowed to be built only if its emissions are 
less than half of the old batteries being re- 
placed. 

Planning and building a new coke battery 
requires 2Vi to 4 years in planning and con- 
struction, depending on the amount of new 
technology incorporated. Construction alone 
takes about 2 years. Delays and uncertainty 
in the process could delay new construction. 

For any other industry trying to expand or 
locate in the area, the task would be equally 
hard. 

How much reduction has been done in how 
many years? 

Benzene emissions: reduced by 96 percent 
since 1988. based on SARA 313 estimates. 

Benzene in ambient air: levels reduced by 
75 percent at Clairton and 87 percent at Lib- 
erty since Neshap installation in mid-1991. 
based on Allegheny County monitored data. 

PM-10 in ambient air: reduced from 12- 
month average of 58 micrograms to 31 
micrograms since mid-1988 (47 percent), 
based on county monitored data. 

SO2 in ambient air: reduced from 56 to 13 
ppb since 1974 (77 percent), county data. 


Coke oven door emissions: reduced by 52 
percent since 1988. 

ALLEGHENY COCNTY HEALTH DE- 
PARTMENT. BUREAU OF AIR POLLU- 
TION CONTROL. 

Pittsburgh. PA. May 28. 1993. 

Hon. ARLEN SPECTTER, 

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Building. Washington. 
DC. 

Dear Senator Specter: This letter is to 
apprise you of the efforts that have been and 
are continuing to be made by the Allegheny 
County Health Department Bureau of Air 
Pollution Control ("Bureau ") to develop an 
air quality attainment plan for particulate 
matter (PM-10) in the Liberty BorouglvClair- 
ton area. Since January. 1992 the Bureau has 
spent in excess of 1.2 million dollars to de- 
velop an acceptable computer-based model 
that can be used to demonstrate attainment. 
This figure includes special monitoring and 
analysis, personnel, computer equipment, 
and meteorological consulting services. We 
continue to expend more than $59,000 per 
month to complete the attainment plan. 
This is clearly the single largest planning 
project ever undertaken by the Bureau. 

The $1.2 million does not include expendi- 
tures made in 1991 or by other elements of 
the community. Industry has cooperated by 
providing large amounts of data and tech- 
nical assistance through consultants and 
their own personnel. Citizen groups, environ- 
mentalists, academics and industry have 
participated through advisory committees 
and work groups. Since passage of the 1990 
Clean Air Act there have been 31 meetings of 
the PM-10 Subcommittee and 26 additional 
meetings of smaller work groups. 

The USX Clairton Coke Works, the major 
source in the area, is located on the valley 
floor at a bend of the Monongahela River, 
Steep hillsides rise on the opposite side of 
the river creating a situation which is dif- 
ficult to model. EPA models work best in 
flat terrain not in the complex terrain found 
in the Monongahela Valley. Historically the 
Bureau has not been able to get models to 
perform satisfactorily in this area. Further- 
more the Clairton Works is a complicated 
source with many emission points. It actu- 
ally takes four different models to accu- 
rately simulate the air quality impact. A 
significant fraction of the emission points 
have never been tested, or can not be tested 
at a reasonable cost, to determine their 
emission rates. Where engineering judge- 
ments have been used in place of hard data 
they have been re-examined and fine-tuned 
several times to assure more realistic sim- 
ulation. 

Because of the reasons mentioned above 
the Bureau has been unable to meet the 
Clean Air Act deadlines for submitting a 
plan. The Bureau will also definitely not 
meet the June 16, 1993 deadline for imposi- 
tion of the first sanction (2:1 offset ratio) and 
probably not meet the December 16. 1993 
deadline for the second sanction (withhold- 
ing of highway funds). Despite the difficul- 
ties, the Bureau continues to work diligently 
to meet the mandates of the Clean Air Act. 
Sincerely yours. 

Ronald J. Chleboski. 

Deputy Director, 
Bureau of Air Pollution Control. 


By Mr. KERRY (for himself. Mr. 
Chafee, Mr. LlEBERMAN, and 
Mr. Baucus): 
S. 1074. A bill to provide for the de- 
velopment and implementation of a na- 
tional strategy to encourage and pro- 


May 28, 1993 

mote opportunities for the United 
States private sector to provide envi- 
ronmentally sound technology, goods, 
and services (especially source reduc- 
tion and energy efficiency technology, 
goods, and services) to the global mar- 
ket, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Banking. Housing, and 
Urban Affairs. 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TRADE 
development act OF 1993 

• Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on June 8 
and 9 the Environmental Business 
Council, a national association of envi- 
ronmental technology companies origi- 
nally founded in Massachusetts, will be 
holding its first national meeting in 
Washington. EPA Administrator Carol 
Browner. Secretary of Commerce Ron 
Brown, Harvard Business School pro- 
fessor Michael Porter and others will 
join in the launching of this national 
cooperative venture which will serve 
both private and public goals. This 
event will be testimony to a simple 
but, in its way, profoundly revolution- 
ary, message; a message that draws on 
our historical experience of mobilizing 
as a Nation to respond to dramatic 
threats; and that— at the same time- 
confounds the conventional wisdom 
that environmental protection is some- 
how the enemy of economic growth 
rather than — as I believe — an essential 
prerequisite to growth and the creation 
of new jobs. 

During the Second World War, Amer- 
ica responded to the rise of Hitler with 
the greatest mobilization of people and 
resources in human history. During the 
cold war, we invested trillions to en- 
sure our security and, in so doing, cre- 
ated by will of Government and na- 
tional commitment, dynamic new in- 
dustries in space technology and weap- 
ons manufacture. We took the 
dreams — and yes, some of the night- 
mares — of scientists and engineers and 
inventors and made them a reality, and 
in so doing, we created millions of jobs 
for American workers. 

Today, we face a different kind of 
threat, less obvious, more dispersed, 
but no less deadly— a threat that is 
eating away at our ability to sustain 
life. No, it is not as spectacular as the 
missile and mushroom cloud of nuclear 
Armageddon; but it is a kind of ongo- 
ing, creeping Armageddon. 

Look around in our own country at 
the thousands of toxic waste dumps, at 
the multibillion dollar mess at our nu- 
clear arms facilities, at our polluted 
harbors and closed shellfish beds, and 
at the sad legacy of acid rain. 

And »hen look beyond our borders to 
the fcmner Soviet empire, where you 
will find environmental degradation 
such as we have never seen anywhere 
else on the face of this planet. Around 
powerplants in the Czech Republic, you 
can pick up gray ash in your hand and 
there may not be a live bush or tree 
within 50 miles. 

Half of Poland's water is too polluted 
even for industrial use; a quarter of its 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12065 


soil is too contaminated for safe farm- 
ing; by the year 20(X). in the absence of 
new environmental technology, the 
Polish people may have no potable 
water at all. 

There is not any part of the world 
you can point to where these kinds of 
problems do not exist. You can go to 
China and look at the deforestation 
around the Yellow River and the flood- 
ing that takes place as a consequence 
of that. 

You can fly over islands of the Phil- 
ippines, the mountains of Laos and 
Thailand, the barren hills of Honduras 
and see what loggers and desperate 
peasants have done to what were once 
double and triple canopy forests; 
clearcutting as far £is the eye can see; 
resulting in uncontrolled erosion that 
destroys farmland and degrades water; 
even the area around the Panama 
Canal is filling up with silt. 

So the questions loom. How long can 
we continue losing forest land each 
year equal to the size of Washington 
State? How long can we continue 
watching wetlands dry up. farm land 
become desert land, coral reefs die. and 
fresh water transform itself from the 
source of life to the carrier of disease? 
How long can we continue pumping bil- 
lions of tons of greenhouse gases into 
the atmosphere each year before our 
present concerns about standard of life 
give way to doubts about survival of 
life, as the ozone is further depleted 
and global climate change grows more 
pronounced? 

The answers are plain. We cannot 
continue as we are, and we cannot sur- 
vive if others develop as we have. For if 
the developing world grows with the 
same energy and general consumption 
habits of the developed world — if, for 
example, a billion Chinese were to be- 
come users of CFC-generating refrig- 
erators powered by a coal-fired utility 
grid — it would not be long before we 
would face a crisis more severe and 
unyielding than any yet known to 
man. 

That is why we have to break 
through the old assumptions about en- 
vironmental regulation and the bottom 
line. We must commit ourselves to de- 
velopment and growth that is sustain- 
able — a kind of green capitalism — 
where jobs and profits are linked to 
new technologies and practices, and 
where we are able to meet present 
needs without compromising the abil- 
ity of our children to meet future 
needs. 

We all know, here in the Senate, 
about the impact that defense cutbacks 
and the prolonged recession are having 
on our economy. There is no single an- 
swer to that problem. But, if any in- 
dustry has the potential to provide 
large-quantity, well-paying, high-qual- 
ity jobs, it is the environmental tech- 
nology, or envirotech industry. 

Envirotech is a $200 billion a year in- 
dustry headed for $400 billion or more 


by the end of the decade; an industry 
where the United States begins with a 
40-percent market share and an enor- 
mous capacity to expand. Environ- 
mental needs and environmental 
awareness are growing around the 
globe. You can see it in everything 
from trade negotiations that emphasize 
environmental standards to new 
consumer publications that highlight 
environment-friendly goods. The de- 
mand is there. There are hundreds of 
thousands of jobs waiting to be cre- 
ated — in recycling technologies, in en- 
ergy conservation, and alternative 
sources of power, in new manufactur- 
ing designs, in pollution cleanup, and 
in environmental services. These are 
the jobs and the business opportunities 
of the future and we had better under- 
stand that, because, as I know and you 
know, our competitors certainly do. 

Last summer, at the Earth summit 
in Rio, I was shocked to see a delega- 
tion of 700 businessmen from Japan, 
fully backed by their government, 
compared to less than 50 from the Unit- 
ed States, many from Massachusetts, 
out basically on their own. Our Presi- 
dent arrived in Rio on virtually the 
last day of the summit for a photo op- 
portunity; ^ur competitors worked 
that summit from day one in search of 
economic opportunities. 

I don't have to tell you that many 
American businesspeople are aware of 
the new realities and are moving hard 
to take advantage of them. But our 
Government can help by encouraging 
the export of environmental tech- 
nologies and services. Today, I am in- 
troducing legislation. The National En- 
vironmental Trade Development Act of 
1993, that will expand the export pro- 
motion services available to envirotech 
companies, bring the private sector 
into the process of setting strategy for 
environmental technology export pro- 
motion programs, and establish a clear 
focus, within our trade and export pro- 
motion programs, on environmental 
technologies. 

Additional export proiiotion services 
are desperately needed m this country 
for all industry. A recent GAO report 
found that the United States spent 
$0.59 for every $1000 of exports in non- 
agricultural export promotion, while 
France spent $1.99, Italy $1.71, and the 
United Kingdom $1.62. The United 
States ranks at the low end in the 
number of overseas export promotion 
staff per billion dollars in exports, with 
1.56 people, while the United Kingdom 
has 8.05 people, France 5.87, Italy 4.14. 
and Germany 2.28. 

Moreover, existing Govenment export 
promotion programs are an inefficient 
bureaucratic maze confusing to export- 
ers. Ten Federal agencies operate over 
150 export promotion programs which 
have been totally uncoordinated. As an 
example of the effects of the lack of co- 
herent strategy setting, the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture received 74 percent 


of the funds even though agricultural 
goods only constitute about 10 percent 
of U.S. exports. This misallocation of 
resources is inexcusable. While our 
competitors abroad execute carefully 
crafted export strategies, we are shoot- 
ing ourselves in the foot. The Trade 
Promotion Coordinating Committee 
[TPCC]. given statutory authority in 
legislation authored by Senator Rocke- 
feller last year will go a long way to 
improve coordination among agencies. 
But if we are to defend our worldwide 
market share in the growing industry 
of envirotech. which has been targeted 
by Japan and Germany, we must do 
more. 

The National Environmental Trade 
Development Act of 1993 creates an 
inter-agency council to develop a strat- 
egy for envirotech export promotion 
and bring the private sector into the 
strategic planning process. To ensure 
the implementation of the strategy de- 
veloped by the Council, the bill calls on 
the President himself, acting through 
the Office of Environmental Policy and 
the National Economic Council to co- 
ordinate the policies and programs of 
the agencies involved in envirotech ex- 
port promotion. 

Further, the bill expands the services 
available to envirotech companies by 
creating one-stop shops for export in- 
formation. The Department of Com- 
merce currently operates the Trade In- 
formation Center which provides ex- 
porters information on foreign mar- 
kets. It also operates export promotion 
one-stop shops in the United States 
and Foreign Commercial Service of- 
fices. This bill would add expertise in 
envirotech to each of these offices, 
making them in effect one-stop shops 
for envirotech export information 

The bill also creates six new regional 
environmental business and technology 
centers which provide hands-on tech- 
nical assistance to small- and medium- 
sized businesses in their regions on ex- 
porting environmental technologies. 
This assistance will include demonstra- 
tions of U.S. goods and services for for- 
eign purchasers, assistance with mar- 
keting and distribution abroad, and 
training of foreign businesses in the 
use of U.S. environmental tech- 
nologies. These centers will build on 
the success of the Environmental Busi- 
ness Council's efforts in Massachusetts 
and bring to businesses around the 
country the kind of technical, busi- 
ness-to-business assistance that can 
only be provided with private sector in- 
volvement. 

But providing assistance to U.S. com- 
panies is not enough. It is the respon- 
sibility of the United States to educate 
those in the developing world about the 
importance of protecting the environ- 
ment and the methods already devel- 
oped for doing so. For that reason, the 
National Environmental Trade Devel- 
opment Act creates the Senior Envi- 
ronmental Service Corps as a new divl- 


12066 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


sion of the Peace Corps. The Environ- 
mental Corps will enable experienced 
U.S. environmental managers, regu- 
lators, educators, and other environ- 
mentalists to share their expertise 
with companies and individuals in de- 
veloping countries. 

Around the world, people are looking 
for leadership on issues that affect us 
all and — despite what happened at 
Rio — most people are still looking for 
that leadership to the United States of 
An||rica. We are the people that led 
the alliance to victory over Adolf Hit- 
ler. We are the people that led the free 
world to survival in the cold war. We 
are the people — perhaps the only peo- 
ple — who have the capacity to lead 
now; to modify our own practices here 
at home, to lend a helping hand to 
those abroad, to show the way at inter- 
national negotiations, and to harness 
the energies and skills of all sectors of 
our society to meet the environmental 
challenge faced by our generation, with 
the same determination and success 
that the military challenges of pre- 
vious generations were overcome. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- 
sent that the full text of the bill and 
the section-by-section analysis of the 
bill appear in the Record following my 
remarks. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

S. 1074 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America m 
Congress assembled. 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the "National En- 
vironmental Trade Development Act of 
1993' •. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

The Congress makes the following findings: 

(1) The global market for environmental 
technology, goods, and services, is now 
$270,000,000,000. and Is estimated to grow to 
$500,000,000,000 by the year 2000. 

(2) The global environmental market has 
been stimulated by the increased environ- 
mental awareness of developing nations, the 
emergence of new republics in the former So- 
viet Union and Eastern Europe, increased 
public awareness of the importance of envi- 
ronmental protection, and the actions taken 
by nations at the United Nations Conference 
on Environment and Development, which 
was held at Rio de Janeiro on June 3-15. 1992. 

(3) The United Nations Conference on Envi- 
ronment and Development adopted "Agenda 
21". which calls on all nations to develop and 
implement national strategies for sustain- 
able development of their natural resources, 
including the wise use of their ocean and 
coastal resources, and urges developed coun- 
tries to enter into technology cooperation 
arrangements with developing countries for 
the provision of environmentally sound tech- 
nologies. 

(4) The national policy of the United 
States declares that pollution should be pre- 
vented or reduced at the source whenever 
feasible, prior to environmentally sound re- 
cycling, treatment, or landfilling. 

(5) Source reduction is fundamentally dif- 
ferent from and more desirable than waste 
management and pollution control and 


should be emphasized by Federal agencies 
when such agencies are promoting United 
States environmental technology, goods, and 
services abroad. 

(6> The United States private sector has de- 
veloped regional clusters of environmental 
businesses, nonprofit organizations, and edu- 
cational institutions in response to United 
States environmental laws and regulations. 

(7) The United States historically has 
dominated in the development of environ- 
mentally sound technology, goods, and serv- 
ices, but has never gained a corresponding 
share of the market outside of the United 
States, in part because other countries have 
more extensive programs to assist the pri- 
vate sector in environmental export pro- 
motion. 

(8) Experts estimate that the United States 
private sector could create over 300,000 new 
jobs by the year 2000 based on an increased 
share of the global market for environmental 
technology. 

(9) At least 12 Federal agencies have some 
type of export promotion program, but no 
single agency has overall responsibility for 
export promotion and no agency is clearly 
respwnsible for the promotion of environ- 
mental technology exports. 

(10) Promoting United States environ- 
mental exports to the global market will 
create jobs, assist nations to implement sus- 
tainable development programs, including 
the wise use of ocean and coastal resources, 
and enhance the role of the United States as 
a leader in global environmental policy. 

SEC. 3. POLICY AND PURPOSE. 

(a) Policy.— The Congress declares that it 
is the policy of the United States to promote 
the export of United States environmental 
technology, goods, and services (especially 
source reduction and energy efficiency tech- 
nology, goods, and services) to the global 
market for the benefit of the global environ- 
ment and to increase private sector jobs in 
the field of environmental technology. 

(b) Purpose.— It is the purpose of this 
Act— 

(1) to encourage the United States private 
sector to export, and assist the United 
States private sector in exporting, environ- 
mental technology, goods, and services (es- 
pecially source reduction and energy effi- 
ciency technology, goods, and services) in 
order to carry out the policy set forth in sub- 
section (a); 

(2) to authorize the President, acting 
through the Office of Environmental Policy 
and the National Economic Council, to co- 
ordinate the relevant policies and programs 
of Federal agencies to carry out the policy 
set forth in subsection (a); 

(3) to direct the Secretary of Commerce to 
ensure that the policies and programs of the 
Department of Commerce, including those of 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- 
ministration, are consistent with and will 
help carry out the policy set forth in sub- 
section (a): 

(4) to establish the Environmental Trade 
Promotion Council of the United States, a 
public-private partnership, and require the 
Council to develop a national strategy to 
promote environmental exports: 

(5) to authorize matching funds to quali- 
fied regional environmental business and 
technology cooperation centers to provide 
technical assistance, education, and training 
to small- and medium-sized United States 
businesses entering the global environ- 
mental market and to provide appropriate 
training to foreign nationals: 

(6) to establish a senior-level environ- 
mental service corps within the Peace Corps 


through which experienced environmental 
professionals would assist developing coun- 
tries and emerging democracies to develop 
and implement their sustainable develop- 
ment programs, including programs to pro- 
mote the wise use of ocean and coastal re- 
sources: and 

(7) to authorize the Secretary of Commerce 
to establish American Business Centers, in- 
cluding Environmental Business Centers, in 
nations that offer promising new markets for 
United States environmental technologies 
(especially source reduction and energy effi- 
ciency technologies). 

SEC. 4. UNFFED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL TRADE 
PROMOTION STRATEGY. 

The President, acting through the Office of 
Environmental Policy and the National Eco- 
nomic Council, shall coordinate the export 
promotion programs of Federal agencies to 
ensure that these programs are consistent 
with and implement the national strategy to 
increase environmental exports that is de- 
veloped by the Environmental Trade Pro- 
motion Council under section 6. 

SEC. 5. COMMERCE DEPARTME.NT PARTICIPA- 
TION IN ENMRONMENTAL TRADE 
PROMOTION STRATEGY. 

(a) Review— The Secretary shall review 
the applicable policies and programs of the 
Department of Commerce, including those of 
the United States and Foreign Commercial 
Service and other components of the Inter- 
national Trade Administration, and those of 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- 
ministration, to ensure that these policies 
and programs are consistent with and imple- 
ment the national strategy to increa.se envi- 
ronmental exports that is developed by the 
Environmental Trade Promotion Council 
under section 6. 

(b) Report to Congre.ss.— The Secretary 
shall report to the Congress any policies and 
programs that are found in the review con- 
ducted under subsection (a) to be inconsist- 
ent with the national strategy developed 
under section 6 and make recommendations 
for any legislative changes needed in the au- 
thorities of those programs to remove the in- 
consistency. , 

(c) 1-Stop Shops.— 

(1) AT THE TRADE INFORMATION CENTER.— 

The Secretary shall establish at the Trade 
Information Center in the Department of 
Commerce an environmental technology ex- 
port promotion 1-stop shop to provide infor- 
mation to United States businesses selling 
environmental technology, goods, and serv- 
ices (especially source reduction and ener^'y 
efficiency technology, goods, and services) 
on applicable technical and financial assist- 
ance programs of the Department, potential 
global market opportunities, including trade 
fairs, for those businesses, and on inter- 
national environmental regulations. 

(2) At UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN COMMER- 
CIAL SERVICE OFFICES.— The Secretary shall 
ensure that appropriate offices of the United 
States and Foreign Commercial Service, 
which function as 1-stop shops foi United 
States exporters, will also function as envi- 
ronmental technology export promotion 1- 
stop shops to provide information described 
in paragraph (1) to United States businesses 
selling environmental technology, goods, 
and services (especially source reduction and 
energy efficiency technology, goods, and 
services) in the district or area served by 
each such office. In operating such shops 
outside the United States, the Secretary 
shall cooperate with the Regional Environ- 
mental Business and Technology Coopera- 
tion Centers described in section 7. 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12067 


SEC. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL TRADE PROMOTION 
COUNCIL. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.— The President shall 
establish an Environmental Trade Pro- 
motion Council (hereafter in this Act re- 
ferred to as the "Council"). 

(b) Membership.— The Council shall be 
composed of the following members: 

(1) The Secretary of Commerce, 

(2) The Secretary of Energy, 

(3) The Administrator of the Environ- 
mental Protection Agency. 

(4) The Administrator of the Agency for 
International Development. 

(5) The Director of the Trade and Develop- 
ment Agency. 

(6) The President of the Elxport-Import 
Bank of the United States. 

(7) The President of the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation. 

(8) 6 individuals appointed by the President 
from among representatives of the United 
States environmental technology industry, 
including 1 representative of the marine bio- 
technology industry. 

(9) 3 individuals appointed by the President 
from among representatives of labor, 
consumer protection, and environmental 
conservation organizations. 

(10) 3 individuals appointed by the Presi- 
dent from among representatives of the 
States and associations representing the 
States. 

(c) CHAIRPERSON.— Th« Secretary shall 
serve as the chairperson of the Council. 

(d) FUNCTIONS OF THE Cou.NCiL.— The Coun- 
cil shall— 

(1) develop a national strategy to increase 
exports of United States environmental tech- 
nology, goods, and services (especially 
source reduction and energy efficiency tech- 
nology, goods, and services): 

(2) work with the Environmental Trade 
Promotion Working Group of the Trade Pro- 
motion Coordinating Committee in develop- 
ing the national strategy referred to in para- 
graph (1): 

(3) prepare an action plan to implement 
the national strategy, including rec- 
ommended guidelines for agencies rep- 
resented on the Council and the Environ- 
mental Trade Promotion Working Group re- 
ferred to in paragraph (2) to take action 
within their respective agencies to promote 
exports of environmental technologies (espe- 
cially source reduction and energy efficiency 
technologies); 

(4) submit the national strategy and action 
plan simultaneously to the President and the 
Congress by April 30, 1994; and 

(5) make periodic reports to the President 
and the Congress on the achievement of the 
goals of the national strategy and the action 
plan. 

(e) Staff AND ADMINISTRATION.— 

(1) Support services.— The Secretary shall 
provide to the Council such administrative 
and technical support services as are nec- 
essary for the effective functioning of the 
Council. 

(2) Other support.— The Administrator of 
General Services shall furnish the Council 
with such offices, equipment, supplies, and 
services as the Administrator is authorized 
to furnish to any other agency or instrumen- 
tality of the United States. 

(3) Compensation and expenses.— 

(A) Except as providedjn subparagraph (B), 
members of the Council shall each be paid 
the daily equivalent of U^e minimum rate of 
basic pay payable for granite GS-15 of the Gen- 
eral Schedule for each day during which they 
are engaged in the actual performance of du- 
ties vested in the Council. 


(B) Members of the Council who are offi- 
cers and employees of the United States may 
not receive additional pay. allowances, or 
benefits by reason of their service on the 
Council. 

(C) Each member of the Council shall re- 
ceive travel expenses, including per diem in 
lieu of subsistence, in accordance with sec- 
tions 5702 and 5703 of title 5. United States 
Code. 

(f) Disclosure of Financial Interest.— 
Each member of the Council appointed under 
paragraph (8) or (9) of subsection (b) shall file 
with the Secretary, before serving on the 
Council, a statement of financial interest 
that that individual, or the spouse, minor 
child, or partner of that individual may have 
in an activity that may be addressed by the 
national strategy or action plan developed 
under subsection (d). 

(g) Procedural Matters.— 

(1) Federal advisory committee act.— 
The Council is not an advisory committee 
for purposes of the Federal Advisory Com- 
mittee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 1.). 

(2) Open meetings. — The meetings of the 
Council shall be open to the public and time- 
ly public notice shall be provided in advance 
of each regular meeting of the Council. 

(h) Sunset.— The Council shall cease to 
exist on September 30, 1998. 

SEC. 7. REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS 
AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION 
CENTERS, 

(a) Purpose.— It is the purpose of this sec- 
tion to provide matching funds for the estab- 
lishment of regional environmental business 
and technology cooperation centers that will 
draw upon their own expertise and existing 
Federal Government programs to provide as- 
sistance, education, and training for United 
States an(^ foreign companies and organiza- 
tions engaged in providing and acquiring 
United States environmental technology, 
goods, and services (especially source reduc- 
tion and energy efficiency technology, goods, 
and services). 

(b) Regional Environmental Business 
and Technology Cooperation Centers.— 
Eligible government and private sector orga- 
nizations that are actively engaged in pro- 
viding export assistance to small- and me- 
dium-sized environmental businesses and en- 
vironmental training to foreign nationals 
may apply to the Secretary, in such form 
and manner as the Secretary may prescribe, 
for designation as a Regional Environmental 
Business and Technology Cooperation Cen- 
ter. Eligible organizations include State and 
local government agencies, small- and me- 
dium-sized businesses, and appropriate pro- 
grams implemented by professional soci- 
eties, worker organizations, industrial orga- 
nizations, for-profit and nonprofit organiza- 
tions, and institutions of higher education, 
including those designated as sea grant col- 
leges under the National Sea Grant College 
Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1121 and following). 

(0) Standards for Designation of Cen- 
ters.— The Secretary shall establish stand- 
ards for designating organizations or pro- 
grams described in subsection (b) as Re- 
gional Environmental Business and Tech- 
nology Cooperation Centers. In establishing 
such standards, the Secretary shall give pri- 
ority to— 

(1) already existing centers and organiza- 
tions which have demonstrated competence 
in the areas of environmental education and 
training and provision of export assistance 
to small- and medium-sized businesses; and 

(2) any group of eligible organizations that 
would be designated as a single Regional En- 
vironmental Business and Technology Co- 
operation Center. 


(d) Grants.— 

(1) In general.— The Secretary may. sub- 
ject to the availability of appropriations, 
make grants to Regional Environmental 
Business and Technology Cooperation Cen- 
ters designated under subsection (b). 

(2) Use of grants. — Grants awarded under 
paragraph (1) may be used by a Regional En- 
vironmental Business and Technology Co- 
operation Center — 

(A) to provide demonstrations of United 
States environmental technology (especially 
source reduction and energy efficiency tech- 
nology) in the United States and in countries 
that offer promising new market possibili- 
ties for the export of environmental tech- 
nology (especially source reduction and en- 
ergy efficiency technology) to foreign na- 
tionals that have an interest in purchasing 
United States environmental technology: 

(B) to provide technical assistance on ex- 
port development programs and export fi- 
nancing to small- and medium-sized busi- 
nesses, in the region served by the Center, 
that have an interest in exporting such envi- 
ronmental technology, goods, and services 
(especially source reduction and energy effi- 
ciency technology, goods, and services): 

(C) to provide technical assistance on how 
to market, distribute, and provide pre- and 
post-sales service to small- and medium- 
sized businesses, in the region served by the 
Center, that have an interest in exporting 
such environmental technology, goods, and 
services (especially source reduction and en- 
ergy efficiency technology, goods, and serv- 
ices): 

(D) to conduct programs in the United 
States of training and education of foreign 
nationals in environmental management, 
coastal zone management, sustainable devel- 
opment, marine pollution prevention and re- 
sponse, marine biotechnology, and environ- 
mental business management: 

(E) to identify market data, environmental 
needs, and environmental regulations of 
specified foreign countries and areas for 
United States environmental technology, 
goods, and services (especially source reduc- 
tion and energy efficiency technology, goods, 
and services); and 

(F) to perform other services to promote 
the export of United States environmental 
technology, goods, and services (especially 
source reduction and energy efficiency tech- 
nology, goods, and services). 

(3) Terms of grants.— Each grant under 
this subsection may be awarded for an initial 
period of not more than 3 years and may be 
renewed for 1 additional period of not more 
than 2 yfears. Each such grant may not at 
any time exceed 50 percent of the operating 
costs of the recipient Regional Environ- 
mental Business and Technology Coopera- 
tion Center and shall be matched by finan- 
cial and in-kind contributions of the Center. 

(4) Limitation in number of grants.— The 
Secretary is authorized to make grants 
under this section to not more than 6 Re- 
gional Environmental Business and Tech- 
nology Cooperation Centers. 

SEC. a SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE 

CORPS. 
The Peace Corps Act (22 U.S.C. 2501-2523) is 
amended by adding at the end the following: 
-SEC. 29. SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE 

CORPS. 

•(a) Establishment of senior Environ- 
mental Service Corps— There is estab- 
lished within the Peace Corps a division 
known as the Senior Environmental Service 
Corps'. 

"(b) I*urpose.— The purpose of the Senior 
Environmental Service Corps is to provide 


12068 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


volunteers with experience in environmental 
management, environmental technology (es- 
pecially source reduction and energy effi- 
ciency technology), sustainable develop- 
ment, coastal zone management, or marine 
pollution and prevention, to countries re- 
questing volunteers with these skills. 

•'(c) Duties a.nd Responsibilities.— Volun- 
teers in the Senior Environmental Service 
Corps shall provide advice to foreign govern- 
ments, ministries, for-profit and nonprofit 
organizations, and others in environmental 
management, strategies, and practices. 

•■(d) Terms and Conditions of Service.— 
The President shall enroll volunteers in the 
Senior Environmental Service Corps in the 
same manner and under the same terms and 
conditions of service as other volunteers are 
enrolled under section 5 of this Act. except 
that volunteers in the Senior Environmental 
Service Corps may be provided with stipends 
sufficient to enable them to fulfill the func- 
tions described in subsection (c) of this sec- 
tion.". 

SEC. 9. AMERICAN BUSINESS CENTERS. 

(a) Establishment.— The Secretary is au- 
thorized and encouraged to establish Amer- 
ican Business Centers, including Environ- 
mental Business Centers, in such countries 
that the Secretary determines offer promis- 
ing new market possibilities for yie export of 
United States environmental technology, 
goods and services (especially source reduc- 
tion and energy efficiency technology, goods, 
and services). To the maximum extent prac- 
ticable, the Secretary shall use the private 
sector to establish such Centers. 

(b) Policy Gcidance.— To the extent con- 
sistent with the policy and purposes of this 
Act. the Secretary shall comply with the di- 
rectives set forth in paragraphs (1). (2). (3). 
(4). and (6) of section 301(c) of the Freedom 
Support Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5821) in estab- 
lishing American Business Centers and Envi- 
ronmental Business Centers under this sec- 
tion. 

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated — 

(1) to the Secretary of Commerce — 

(A) $4.(X)0.000 for each of fiscal years 1994. 
1995. 1996. 1997. and 1998. to carry out sections 
5. 6. and 9: and 

(B) $6.(K)0.000 for eac^ of fiscal years 1994. 

1995. 1996. 1997. and 1998. to carry out section 
7; and 

(2) to the Director of the Peace Corps 
$1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1994. 1995. 

1996. 1997. and 1998 to carry out section 8. 
Sums appropriated pursuant to paragraph (2) 
shall remain available for 2 fiscal years. 

SEC. U. DEFINITIONS. 

As used in this Act— 

(1) the term 'export promotion program" 
means any activity of the Federal Govern- 
ment designed to stimulate or assist United 
States businesses in marketing their goods 
and services, including environmental tech- 
nology, abroad; 

(2) the term "Secretary" means the Sec- 
retary of Commerce: and 

(3) the term ••State" means each of the 
several States, the District of Columbia, and 
any commonwealth, territory, or possession 
of the United States. 

The National Environmental Trade De- 
velopment Act of 1993— Senator John 
Kerry 

Section 1. The Short title of the bill Is the 
"National Environmental Trade Develop- 
ment Act of 1993. " 

Section 2. This section contains the find- 
ings on which the bill is based, including the 


finding that the global market for environ- 
mental technologies is currently $270 billion 
and may grow to $500 billion by the year 2000. 

Section 3. This section contains the policy 
and purposes of the bill. The central policy is 
to enhance the U.S. leadership in exporting 
environmental technologies, goods, and serv- 
ices in order to create private sector jobs and 
benefit the global environment. 

Section 4. This section calls on the Presi- 
dent, acting through the Office of Environ- 
mental Policy and the National Economic 
Council, to coordinate the policies and pro- 
grams of agencies involved in export pro- 
motion of U.S. environmental technology, 
goods, and services. 

Section 5. This section directs the Sec- 
retary of Commerce to coordinate all rel- 
evant Department of Commerce programs, 
including those of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration; report to Con- 
gress concerning any needed legislative 
changes required to implement the national 
strategy, and add expertise on environ- 
mental technology goods and services to the 
Trade Information Center at the Department 
of Commerce and the export promotion one- 
stop shops at appropriate U.S. and Foreign 
Commercial Service offices. 

Section 6. This section authorizes the 
President to establish a 19-member Environ- 
mental Trade Promotion Council comprised 
of representatives from the government and 
the private sector. The Council will be 
chaired by the Secretary of Commerce. The 
new Council is needed to bring the private 
sector into the strategic planning process for 
promoting U.S. environmental exports. Nei- 
ther the Trade Promotion Coordinating 
Committee nor its subgroup, the Environ- 
mental Trade Working Group, has any pri- 
vate sector representation. The Environ- 
mental Trade Promotion Council is directed 
to develop, by April 30, 1994. a national strat- 
egy and action plan to increase exports of 
U.S. environmental technologies, goods and 
services. The Council will cease to exist on 
September 30, 1998. 

Section 7. This section authorizes the Sec- 
retary of Commerce to designate and provide 
matching (50-50) grants to no more than six 
P.egional Environmental Business and Tech- 
nology Cooperation Centers. The Centers 
will provide hands-on assistance to small- 
and medium-sized businesses in their regions 
on exporting environmental technologies, 
demonstrating those technologies, analyzing 
market needs for those technologies, and 
helping foreign businesses and individuals 
obtain training and assistance to use U.S- 
made environmental technologies. These 
Centers differ from the one-stop shops at the 
U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service offices 
in that they provide technical assistance and 
business-to-business contacts. 

Section 8. This section establishes a Senior 
Environmental Service Corps as a new divi- 
sion of the Peace Corps. The Senior Environ- 
mental Service Corps will consist of experi- 
enced environmental managers, regulators, 
educators, and other environmentalists; will 
serve generally under the same terms and 
conditions as other Peace Corps volunteers: 
will provide advice to governments and orga- 
nizations in nations requesting Peace Corps 
volunteers with this type of specialized ex- 
pertise: and will be eligible for additional 
stipends commensurate with experience and 
education, if needed to recruit Environ- 
mental Service Corps volunteers. 

Section 9. This section authorizes the Sec- 
retary of Commerce to establish American 
Business Centers and Environmental Busi- 
ness Centers in nations that offer promising 


new market possibilities for U.S. -made envi- 
ronmental technologies, goods and services. 
The Secretary is encouraged to use the pri- 
vate sector to the maxinDum extent prac- 
ticable in establishing such Centers. The 
Centers are facilities with services and infor- 
mation for U.S. small- and medium-sized 
companies that want to do businesses over- 
seas but lack the wherewithal to establish 
their own presence overseas. The Centers are 
modeled on Centers authorized in section 301 
of the Freedom Support Act (Public Law 102- 
511). but are not limited to the independent 
states of the former Soviet Union and are to 
be funded through the Commerce Depart- 
ment. 

Section 10. This section authorizes appro- 
priations for the Secretary of Com"merce and 
the Director of the Peace Corps for fiscal 
years 1994-1998 to carry out the Act.» 


ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS 

S. 4 

At the request of Mr. Hollings, the 
name of the Senator from Nebraska 
[Mr. ExoN] was added as a cosponsor of 
S. 4, a bill to promote the industrial 
competitiveness and economic growth 
of the United States by strengthening 
and expanding the civilian technology 
programs of the Department of Com- 
merce, amending the Stevenson-Wydler 
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to 
enhance the development and nation- 
wide deployment of manufacturing 
technologies, and authorizing appro- 
priations for the Technology Adminis- 
tration of the Department of Com- 
merce, including the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology, and for 
other purposes. 

S. 368 

At the request of Mr. Bumpers, the 
names of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. 
Glenn], and the Senator from Califor- 
nia [Mrs. Boxer] were added as cospon- 
sors of S. 368, a bill to amend the Inter- 
nal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 
capital gains tax differential for indi- 
vidual and corporate taxpayers who 
make high-risk, long-term, growth-ori- 
ented venture and seed capital invest- 
ments in startup and other small en- 
terprises. 

.S. 416 

At the request of Mr. DeConcini, the 
name of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. 
Inouye] was added as a cosponsor of S. 
416. a bill to authorize the provision of 
assistance to the victims of war in the 
former Yugoslavia, including the vic- 
tims of torture, rape, and other juar 
crimes and their families. 

S. 434 I 

At the request of Mr. Bumpers, the 
name of the Senator from Colorado 
[Mr. CAMPBELL] was added as a cospon- 
sor of S. 434, a bill to amend the Inter- 
nal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow tax- 
payers a bad debt deduction for certain 
partially unpaid child support pay- 
ments and to require the inclusion in 
income of chiM support payments 
which a taxpayer does not pay, and for 
Other purposes. 


"-.» 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12069 


S. 487 

At the request of Mr. MITCHELL, the 
name of the Senator from Washington 
[Mr. Gorton] was added as a cosponsor 
of S. 487, a bill to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 
extend and modify the low-income 
housing tax credit. 

S. 378 

At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the 
name of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. 
Glenn] was added as a cosponsor of S. 
578, a bill to protect the free exercise of 
religion. 

S. 634 

At the request of Mr. Glenn, the 
name of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. 
Inouye] was added as a cosponsor of S. 
634, a bill to establish a program to em- 
power parents with the knowledge and 
opportunities they need to help their 
children enter school ready to learn, 
and for other purposes. 

S. 666 

At the request of Mr. Danforth, the 
name of the Senator from Wyoming 
[Mr. Wallop] was added as a cosponsor 
of S. 666, a bill to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 
extend and modify the credit for in- 
creasing research activities, and for 
other purposes. 

S. 839 

At the request of Mr. Hollings, the 
names of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. 
Simon] and the Senator from Florida 
[Mr. Graham] were added as cosponsors 
of S. 839, a bill to establish a program 
to facilitate development of high-speed 
rail transportation in the United 
States, and for other purposes. 

S. 8S8 

At the request of Mr. Danforth, the 
name of the Senator from Minnesota 
[Mr. DURENBERGER] was added as a co- 
sponsor of S. 858, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to mod- 
ify the alternative minimum tax sys- 
tem, and for other purposes. 

S. 874 

At the request of Mr. Pressler, the 
name of the Senator from Alabama 
[Mr. Heflin] was added as a cosponsor 
of S. 874, a bill to reauthorize Public 
Law 81-874 (Impact Aid), and for other 
purposes, 

S. 881 

At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name 
of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. 
Brya.n] was added as a cosponstJr of S. 
881, a bill to amend the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to 
reauthorize and make certain technical 
corrections in the Civic Education Pro- 
gram, and for other purposes. 

S. 917 

At the request of Mr. Bond, the 
names of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. 
Metzenbaum], and the Senator from 
California [Mrs. Feinstein] were added 
as cosponsors of S. 917, a bill to provide 
surveillance, research, and services 
aimed at prevention of birth defects. 


S. 943 

At the request of Mr. Durenberger, 
the names of the Senator from New 
Mexico [Mr. Domenici], and the Sen- 
ator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] 
were added as cosponsors of S. 943, a 
bill to protect children from the phys- 
ical and mental harm resulting from 
violence contained in television pro- 
grams. 

S. 1007 

At the request of Mr. PRYOR, the 
name of the Senator from Montana 
[Mr. Burns] was added as a cosponsor 
of S. 1007, a bill to recreate the com- 
mon good by supporting programs that 
enable adults to share their experience 
and skills with elementary and second- 
ary school age children. 


SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLU- 
TION 27— EVERY FIFTH CHILD 
RESOLUTION 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. CJORTON, 
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, 
Mr. Campbell, Mr. Johnston, and Mr. 
DeConcini) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution, which was re- 
ferred to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources. 

S. Con. Res. 27 

Whereas every fifth child in the United 
States lives in poverty: 

Whereas every 35 seconds, on the average, 
an infant is bom into jroverty in the United 
States; 

Whereas children, who account for 15 per- 
cent of all homeless people, are the fastest 
growing segment of the homeless population: 

Whereas, in the last decade, childhood pov- 
erty increased 21 percent; 

Whereas Bread for the World and the bipar- 
tisan National Commission on Children rec- 
ommended funding increases to allow all eli- 
gible individuals access to the special supple- 
mental food program for women, infants, and 
children and Head Start programs, and 
called for expansion of the Job Corps; 

Whereas a study conducted by the Sec- 
retary of Agriculture in 1991 demonstrated 
that for each dollar spent on a pregnant 
woman under the WIC program between $2.98 
and $4.75 was saved in medicaid costs: 

Whereas, in 1990. corporate executive offi- 
cers of 5 major corporations testified at a 
congressional hearing about the need to fully 
fund the WIC program by the year 1996 and 
concluded that "each pregnant woman, in- 
fant, and child who could benefit from WIC 
but is left out of the program represents a 
potential drain both on budgetary outlays in 
subsequent years and on our Nation's future 
economic growth, not to mention a tragic 
loss in human potential"; 

Whereas the WIC program reduces fetal 
death and low birthweight. a major cause of 
infant mortality; 

Whereas a study by the Comptroller Gen- 
eral found that WIC benefits provided to all 
eligible pregnant women would more than 
pay for themselves in 1 year arid would avert 
more than $1,000,000,000 in health-related 
costs over an 18-year period: 

Whereas additional health benefits for 
children in the WIC program include reduc- 
tion of anemia, increased immunization, and 
regular health care: 

Whereas participation in the WIC program 
also improves the cognitive development of 
children; 


Whereas, as of the date of approval of this 
resolution, the WIC program serves around 
60 percent of those individuals who are eligi- 
ble: 

WTiereas children who have participated in 
a Head Start program are more likely to suc- 
ceed in school and less likely to be retained 
in a grade or to be placed in special edu- 
cation: 

WTiereas. in addition to providing edu- 
cational benefits, the comprehensive services 
offered by Head Start programs help children 
receive complete medical care, including im- 
munizations against infectious diseases; 

Whereas Head Start programs have a 28- 
year record of success; 

Whereas, despite well documented program 
effectiveness, as of the date of approval of 
this resolution. Head Start programs reach 
only 1 in 3 eligible children: 

Whereas the Job Corps has helped 1.500.000 
disadvantaged youth further their education 
and has opened doors to job opportunities 
these youth otherwise would not have had; 

Whereas, during 1991. according to the Sec- 
retary of Labor. 60 percent of the Job Corps 
graduates found employnr^nt and 16 percent 
went on to advanced training or education; 

Whereas a 1983 private study found that for 
every dollar invested in the Job Corps. $1.46 
is returned through reductions in welfare 
costs and the costs attributable to crime and 
incarceration and through increased taxes 
paid by graduates; 

Whereas the Job Corps now serves only 1 in 
7 of the most needy youth in the United 
States; 

Whereas funding should be provided so that 
the WIC program is fully funded by the year 
1996: 

Whereas funding should be provided so that 
Head Start programs are fully funded by the 
year 1999; 

Whereas funding should be provided to the 
Job Corps so that at least 50 new centers can 
be developed by the year 2001 and at least 50 
percent more low-income disadvantaged 
youth can be served by the year 2001; 

Whereas experts from across the political 
spectrum of the United States have called 
for reductions in military spending as a re- 
sult of the end of the Cold War: and 

Whereas it is appropriate to reevaluate our 
national priorities and redirect a portion of 
our military savings to address the pressing 
needs of our children: Now. therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep- 
resentatives concurring). It is the sense of Con- 
gress that— 

(1)(A) the special supplemental food pro- 
gram for women, infants, and children (WIC) 
authorized by section 17 of the Child Nutri- 
tion Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) should be 
fully funded by 1996; 

(Bl Head Start programs established under 
the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.) 
should be fully funded by 1999: and 

(C) at least 50 additional Job Corps centers 
established under subtitle B of title IV' of the 
Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1691 
et seq.) should be established by the year 
2001 and the Job Corps should serve at least 
50 percent more low-income disadvantaged 
youth by the year 2001: 

(2) funds should be made available to begin 
to achieve the goals stated in paragraph (1); 

(3) in the case of the special supplemental 
food program for women, infants, and chil- 
dren (WIC). at least— 

(A) S3.287.000.000 should be made available 
for fiscal year 1994: • 

(B) $3,564,000,000 should be made available 
for fiscal year 1995: and 

(C) $3,914,000,000 should be made available 
for fiscal year 1996; 


^ 


12070 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


(4) in the case of Head Start programs, at 
least— 

(A) S4. 150.000.000 should be made available 
for fiscal year 1994; 

(B) $4,970,000,000 should be made available 
for fiscal year 1995 

<C) $5,810,000,000 
for fiscal year 1996 

(D) $6,740,000,000 
for fiscal year 1997 

(E) $7,660,000,000 
for fiscal year 1998 

(F) full funding 
for fiscal year 1999: 


should be made available 


should be made available 


should be made available 
and 

should be made available 
and 

(5) in the case of the Job Corps program, at 
least— 

(A) $1,153,000,000 should be made available 
for fiscal year 1994; 

(B) $1,250,000,000 should be made available 
for fiscal year 1995 

(C) $1,400,000,000 
for fiscal year 19% 

(D) $1,490,000,000 
for fiscal year 1997 

(E) $1,550,000,000 
for fiscal year 1998 

(F) $1,709,000,000 
for fiscal year 1999; 


should be made available 


should be made available 


should be made available 


should be made available 
and 

(G) $1,821,000,000 should be made available 
for each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001. 

Sec. 2. This resolution may be cited as the 
"Every Fifth Child Resolution". 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, children 
are our most precious resource. They 
are our future. Yet when it comes to 
facing children's problems on the na- 
tional level, the budget deficit, the 
military, and foreign affairs seem to 
command more attention. 

Every fifth child in the United States 
lives in poverty. Children, who account 
for 15 percent of all homeless people, 
are the fastest growing segment of the 
homeless population. In the last dec- 
ade, child poverty increased 21 percent. 

Today I am submitting a concurrent 
resolution which expresses the sense of 
the Congress in support of increased 
funding for three cost-saving programs. 
These three programs dramatically re- 
duce childhood hunger and poverty: the 
Special Supplemental Food Program 
for Women, Infants, and Children 
[WIC]; Head Start; and Job Corps. 

If the United States is to progress 
into the 21st century, we must dedicate 
ourselves to sustaining and strengthen- 
ing our Nation's children. Investment 
in these programs — WIC, Head Start, 
and Job Corps — are a step toward 
achieving that goal. 

The purpose of the every fifth child 
resolution is simple — to support efforts 
to ensure that all children have enough 
food to eat and the educational skills 
to lead a productive, successful life. 

This effort has been promoted tire- 
lessly by Bread for the World. They are 
truly advocates of the children. 
Through Bread for the World, and 330 
other organizations like it, the plight 
of child poverty remains at the fore- 
front of our Nation's consciousness. 

It is time to rethink the priorities of 
the last 12 yeai^ and set our Nation on 
the right path once and for all. We 
must end child poverty and hunger. 

We must invest in our children and 
make their future our top priority. To 


be a productive and competitive Nation 
we must nurture and support our chil- 
dren. The very same children that with 
their families have had to line up at 
food shelters, or worse yet, going with- 
out food, are unable to learn and live a 
normal childhood. 

President Clinton shares these goals. 
The President's budget calls for full 
funding of the WIC Program, full fund- 
ing of Head Start, and expansion of Job 
Corps. We now have a President who 
has a vision for this unprecedented op- 
portunity. We should not lose this 
chance. 

With the end of the cold war, we face 
a once-in-a-generation opportunity to 
redirect taxpayer money — previously 
lavished on the military— into pro- 
grams that help our children. Some 
will say that such savings should go 
solely to deficit reduction, meanwhile 
children languish, programs with prov- 
en success go unfunded, and we lose an 
opportunity like . this Nation has not 
had in recent memory to invest in the 
future. There can be no better use for 
the money saved by reductions in mili- 
tary spending than investing in our 
children. 

This concurrent resolution expresses 
congressional support for full funding 
of WIC phased in by 1996; full funding 
for Head Start phased-in by 1999; and 
increased funding for Job Corps, to set 
up 50 additional Job Corps Centers by 
the year 2001. 

These programs help children at 
three critical periods of life: WIC re- 
duces infant mortality by providing 
nutritious foods, nutrition instruction, 
and health assessments to low-income 
pregriant women, infants, and children; 
Head Start provides a comprehensive 
preschool program — including nutri- 
tion, education, and medical services — 
to low-income children; and Job Corps 
offers health care, education and voca- 
tional training to disadvantaged youth. 

Despite their outstanding record, all 
of these programs are underfunded. 
WIC reaches only 60 percent of eligible 
participants. Head Start reaches only 
one out of three eligible children, and 
Job Corps serves only one in seven eli- 
gible youth. 

The Special Supplemental Food Pro- 
gram for Women, Infants, and Children 
[WIC], created by Congress in 1972, is 
universally acclaimed as one of our Na- 
tion's most successful nutritional pro- 
grams. In addition to food, WIC pro- 
vides nutritional instruction, health 
assessments, and medically prescribed 
supplements. WIC is also a cost-saving 
program. 

Much of the short-term savings real- 
ized by WIC is due to the fact that WIC 
reduces the chances that babies will 
have low birthweights, or that they 
will be born prematurely. Babies with 
low birthweight are at greater risk of a 
range of physical impairments, and 
often require very expensive long-term 
care. A 1991 USDA study showed that 


for every WIC dollar spent on a preg- 
nant woman, between $2.98 and $4.75 
was saved in Medicaid costs during the 
first 60 days after birth. 

Head Start is an early childhood de- 
velopment program that addresses the 
wide-ranging needs of preschool chil- 
dren. Eligible children receive nutri- 
tion, education, and medical services, 
and their parents receive qhild rearing 
counseling. Head Start has dramati- 
cally influenced the educational and 
social development of the children in- 
volved. In fact, children in programs 
such as Head Start are twice as likely 
to graduate from high school, than 
those children in similar cir- 
cumstances who cannot participate. 
Head Start has a 28-year record of suc- 
cess. 

Job Corps is a program that was es- 
tablished to help disadvantaged youths 
gain job skills and work experience. 
Through Job Corps Centers, participat- 
ing youths, ages 16-21, attend classes to 
gain high school equivalency degrees 
and receive career training, counseling 
and health care. Job Corps has helped 
millions of young adults further their 
education and has opened doors to job 
opportunities these young people oth- 
erwise would not have had. 

WIC, Head Start, and Job Corps are 
programs that have proven themselves 
as worthwhile public investments— not 
useless public expenses. Four dollars 
can be saved for every dollar invested 
in WIC, $3 for each dollar spent on 
Head Start, and $1.50 for every dollar 
invested in Job Corps. 

In the last decade, more and more 
people have fallen below the poverty 
line, and we are even now continuing 
to feel the effects of the recession. As 
the number of those in poverty have in- 
creased, WIC, Head Start, and Job 
Corps have been placed under increased 
pressure to handle the swelling num- 
bers of people that rely on these pro- 
grams for day-to-day existence. 

President Clinton has committed his 
administration to investing in the peo- 
ple these programs serve. This invest- 
ment in human potential is long over- 
due. 

I have submitted this measure as a 
concurrent resolution to ensure the 
broadest possible support in the Con- 
gress. I hope my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle will join me in spon- 
soring this concurrent resolution. 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, earlier 
this year, the University of Washing- 
ton and the Washington Children's Al- 
liance released their annual report: 
The State of Washington's Children 
1992. One of the most disturbing statis- 
tics in the report is that one in four of 
our children live in homes where their 
parents cannot provide basic human 
necessities. They must often choose be- 
tween heating their home in the winter 
or properly feeding their children. 
They must often choose between pay- 
ing their rent or taking their child to 
the doctor. 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


\ 


12071 


These problems are not unique to 
Washington State. It is estimated that 
one in five children in America lives in 
poverty. There is no question that we 
must address this problem imme- 
diately. But. in doing so, we must uti- 
lize programs that are effective, pro- 
grams that have proven to be wise in- 
vestments, and which actually help 
raise our children out from under the 
grip of poverty. 

The people of Washington State are 
aware of the need for investing in good 
programs. In the last year I have re- 
ceived literally thousands of letters 
and phone calls urging me to take 
steps to fight poverty. In response to 
the thousands of Washington State 
citizen's who contacted me. I am proud 
to join Senator LEAiri' in introducing 
the every fifth child resolution; named 
for the fact that every fifth child in 
America lives in poverty. 

This bill attacks poverty by calling 
on the Congress to create new job and 
educational opportunities and by help- 
ing families fulfill their basic nutri- 
tional needs. 

The every fifth child resolution will 
accomplish these goals by endorsing 
the full funding of three vital and ef- 
fective programs: The Special Supple- 
mental Food Program for Women, In- 
fants, and Children [WIC]; the Head 
Start Program; and, the Job Corps Pro- 
gram. 

As a member of the Appropriations 
Subcommijttee which funds the pro- 
grams, I do not make this decision 
lightly. My support was given only 
after much research and careful eval- 
uations of these programs and how 
they interact with other programs. 
During the consideration of the budget 
resolution earlier this year, I supported 
amendments that were in line with the 
goals of this resolution. On the appro- 
priations subcommittee I will work to 
ensure that these and other programs 
providing a better future for our chil- 
dren receive the funding they deserve. 

Further, I lend my support for the 
every fifth child resolution with the ex- 
pectation that improvements will be 
made to the programs it supports. In 
recent months, new findings have dem- 
onstrated the need for improving these 
programs to more effectively serve the 
needy children of the United States. 
These concerns, however, do not over- 
shadow the important services these 
programs provide and that is why I am 
pleased to support this resolution. 

This proposal is one of many steps 
that I am taking this year to help chil- 
dren and their families. Earlier this 
year I introduced the Fairness for 
Adopted Children Act. This bill will 
help young, low-income women in cri- 
sis pregnancy to receive the maternity 
services they need to make a proper de- 
cision about their future and the future 
of their babies. It will also help adopt- 
ed children and families receive equal 
treatment in health insurance and fam- 
ily leave policies. 


A second bill that I introduced just 
this week is the Youth Job Opportuni- 
ties Through Business Act. This legis- 
lation will create thousands of job op- 
portunities for young people through 
public-private partnerships. The Youth 
Jobs Act will also bolster local commu- 
nities and local economies by taking 
America's youth out of make-work 
government programs and placing 
them into private businesses where 
they will be actively contributing to 
America's productivity and economic 
growth. 

The every fifth child resolution is an- 
other important piece of legislation in 
combatting childhood poverty. 

In "The Family Crucible and Healthy 
Child Development." the Carnegie 
Foundation stated that prenatal and 
preventative care for children in their 
first few years is crucial to the healthy 
development of the child. "Good pre- 
natal care dramatically improves the 
chances that a woman will bear a 
healthy baby. Well-baby care oriented 
to preventing lifelong damage is 
vital * * *" The WIC Program is a cru- 
cial link in providing this care to chil- 
dren. WIC provides supplementary food 
to under-privileged families which 
helps to reduce fetal death and low 
birth weight, a major cause of infant 
mortality. 

In 1990, executive officers from five 
major U.S. corporations testified at a 
congressional hearing that the WIC 
Program is an effective tool for com- 
batting poverty. It is estimated that 
for every dollar we spend on WIC, we 
save up Co $4.21 in future Medicaid and 
welfare costs. Unfortunately, the WIC 
Program only serves 55 percent of 
those eligible. The Every Fifth Child 
Act would rectify that situation. 

Another problem area addressed by 
"The State of Washington Children 
1992" is the lower educational attain- 
ment levels of our children. This prob- 
lem forms in the very earliest years of 
education. The Every Fifth Child Act 
will attack this problem by fully fund- 
ing the Head Start Program. Head 
Start provides educational opportuni- 
ties for under-privileged children as 
well as comprehensive services to im- 
prove children's health care. In Wash- 
ington State, only 50 percent of 2-year- 
old children are completely immu- 
nized. Head Start offers not only im- 
munization for participating children, 
but also complete medical screenings. 
Like WIC. Head Start has a proven 
track record of success. For every dol- 
lar we spend on it. we save an esti- 
mated $4.75 in future special education 
and other medical and education costs. 

An issue that will receive consider- 
able attention in the new Congress is 
job creation and economic growth. The 
Every Fifth Child Act addresses this 
issue by relying on the proven Job 
Corps Program. The average Job Corps 
enrollees are 18-year-old high school 
drop-outs from poor families. They 


generally have never held a full time 
job. Without help, their prospects for 
success, or even self-sufficiency, are 
slim. But. after a short enrollment in 
the Job Corps — the average stay is 7.3 
months — their future is dramatically 
different. During 1989, according to the 
Department of Labor, 84 percent of the 
Job Corps graduates went on to full- 
time employment, advanced training, 
or further education. The cost benefit 
analysis shows that for every dollar in- 
vested in Job Corps, $1.46 is saved 
through reductions in welfare and re- 
lated programs. But, once again, this 
program is underutilized — only 1 out of 
7 of eligible youth are served. The 
Every Fifth Child Act would allow 50 
additional centers to be build and help 
50 percent more low-income youth by 
the year 2000. 

Combined, the programs supported in 
the every fifth child resolution, the 
Fairness for Adopted Children Act, and 
the Youth Job Opportunities Through 
Business Act will give our children new 
opportunities for success and give 
America a tremendous return on our 
investment. It is time for Congress to 
take decisive action to provide eco- 
nomic opportunities and equitable 
treatment to America's youth and pass 
these important pass these important 
pieces of legislation. 


SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLU- 
TION 28— REGARDING THE TAIF 
AGREEMENT 

Mr. RiEGLE (for himself, Mr. Mitch- 
ell, Mr. Dole, Mr. Helms. Mr. Moy- 
NiHAN, Mr. Brown, Mr. Wallop, and 
Mr. Levin) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was re- 
ferred to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations; 

S. Con. Res. 28 

Whereas the governments of Syria and 
Lebanon have participated in the Middle 
East peace process and progress has been 
made in negotiations; 

Whereas Syria continues to exert undue in- 
fluence upon the government of Lebanon, 
maintaining between 35.000 and 40.000 sol- 
diers in Lebanon; 

Whereas in Senate Concurrent Resolution 
129 and House Concurrent Resolution 339 of 
the 102d Congress, Congress called upon 
Syria to withdraw its armed forces to the 
gateway of the Bekaa Valley by September 
1992 in accordance with the Taif Agreement 
of 1989. as a prelude to complete withdrawal 
from Lebanon; 

Whereas Syria, has pledged publicly and 
privately to abide by the Taif Agreement; 

Whereas the Taif Agreement requires that 
two years after specific Lebanese political 
conditions are reached. Syria and Lebanon 
are to decide on the redeployment of Syrian 
troops to the gateway of the Bekaa Valley, 
with actual redeployment occurring shortly 
thereafter; 

Whereas Syria has not begun withdrawing 
its armed forces to the gateway of the Bekaa 
Valley despite the fact that more than two 
years have passed since Lebanon met the po- 
litical conditions listed in the Taif Agree- 
ment: 


12072 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


Wbereas Syria's pledge to uphold the Taif 
Agreement requires it to oppose any action 
which threatens Lebanese security, inde- 
pendence, or sovereignty; 

Wherea there is evidence that armed 
groups continue to operate in Lebanon with 
the acquiescence of the Syrian government: 

Whereas the success of the Taif Agreement 
depends upon the withdrawal of Syrian 
armed forces to the gateway of the Bekaa 
Valley without further delay and the disar- 
mament of all armed militias in Lebanon; 

Whereas the Government of Syria is cur- 
rently prohibited by law from receiving U.S. 
government assistance: 

Whereas in Senate Concurrent Resolution 
129 and House Concurrent Resolution 339 of 
the 102d Congress, the Congress urged the 
government of Lebanon to hold elections if 
they can be free and fair, conducted after 
Syrian withdrawal and without outside in- 
terference, and witnessed by international 
observers; 

Whereas truly free and fair elections in 
Lebanon are not possible in areas of foreign 
military control: 

Whereas the Lebanese elections of Septem- 
ber 1992 were held before the withdrawal of 
foreign armed forces: 

Whereas international observer units were 
not present to monitor the Lebanese elec- 
tions: 

Whereas according to the State Depart- 
ment, there were widespread reports of elec- 
toral irregularities: and 

Whereas more than half of the Lebanese 
people refrained from participating in or 
boycotted the Lebanese elections: Now, 
therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep- 
resentatives concurring), that the Congress — 

(1) commends the governments of Syria 
and Lebanon for their participation In the 
Middle East peace process and encourages 
their continued cooperation in efforts to 
reach a broad settlement of ongoing regional 
conflicts and disputes; 

(2) expenses its support for the sov- 
ereignty, political independence, and terri- 
torial integrity of Lebanon; 

(3) considers the Government of Syria in 
violation of the Taif Agreement because it 
had not decided, in coordination with the 
Government of Lebanon, to withdraw its 
armed forces to the gateway of the Bekaa 
Valley by September 1992. with actual with- 
drawal to that point following shortly there- 
after; 

(4) strongly urges Syria to withdraw its 
armed forces to the gateway of the Bekaa 
Valley without further delay: 

(5) calls upon the governments of Syria and 
Lebanon to immediately agree upon a firm 
timetable for the complete withdrawal of 
Syrian armed forces, including military, 
paramilitary, and security services, from 
Lebanon; 

(6) calls upon the President to consider 
withholding any potential future U.S. assist- 
ance to the Government of Syria, until Syria 
withdraws its armed forces to the gateway of 
the Bekaa Valley; 

(7) urges the Secretary of the Treasury to 
consider directing the United States execu- 
tive directors of all international financial 
institutions, such as International Monetary 
Fund and the International Bank for Recon- 
struction and Development, to vote against 
all potential future loans or assistance to 
Syria until Syria withdraws its armed forces 
to the gateway of the Bekaa Valley; 

(8) reaffirms the continued applicability of 
all prohibitions, restrictions, limitations, 
and directives that would otherwise apply to 
Syria; 


(9) calls upon the government of Syria to 
increase its cooperation with the govern- 
ment of Lebanon in efforts to disarm non- 
governmental armed groups and militias lo- 
cated in Lebanon, especially Hizbollah, in 
southern Lebanon; 

(10) urges the President to consider meth- 
ods of revitalizing the Taif Agreement and to 
encourage the negotiation of a firm, nego- 
tiated timetable for complete withdrawal of 
Syrian armed forces from Lebanon, in order 
to facilitate the restoration of Lebanon's 
sovereignty, political independence, and ter- 
ritorial integrity; and 

(11) concurs with the Department of State 
that the results of the Lebanese elections do 
not reflect the full spectrum of the body 
politic of Lebanon. 

Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I rise to 
introduce legislation to promote Leb- 
anon's future as an independent and 
democratic state. I am joined by Sen- 
ators Mitchell, Dole, Pell, Helms. 
MOYNIHAN, Brown. Wallop, and Levin 
in submitting this legislation. 

Today, much of Lebanon is occupied 
by between 35,000 and 40.000 Syrian 
troops. Until those troops are removed. 
Lebanon will never be able to exert its 
political independence or safeguard its 
territorial integrity. The Taif Agree- 
ment of 1989, which forms the basis of 
a reunited Lebanon, was designed, in 
part, to begin the process of removing 
Syrian troops from Lebanon. According 
to the State Department. Syria has 
pledged publicly and privately to abide 
by the Taif Agreement. 

Under Taif. 2 years after certain po- 
litical conditions were met in Lebanon, 
Syria would decide upon the with- 
drawal of its armed forces to the gate- 
way of the Bekaa Valley, a location 
specified in that instrument. Those 
conditions — ratification of a national 
accord document, the election of a 
president of the republic, the formation 
of a national accord government, and 
the confirmation of political reforms in 
the constitution— were met in Septem- 
ber 1990— starting the 2-year Taif clock 
ticking. 

More than 2 years have passed since 
the Taif clock has run. but the Syrian 
decision on withdrawal never occurred. 
This resolution specifically states that 
the Congress considers the Government 
of Syria in violation of Taif because it 
has not decided, in coordination with 
the Government of Lebanon, to with- 
draw its armed forces to the gateway of 
the Bekaa Valley by September 1992, 
with actual withdrawal to that point 
following shortly thereafter. 

While Taif discusses only withdrawal 
to the gateway of the Bekaa. Lebanon's 
political independence and territorial 
integrity can only be restored when 
Syrian Armed Forces are completely 
removed from Lebanon. The resolution 
I introduce today calls upon the Gov- 
ernments of Syria and Lebanon to im- 
mediately agree upon a firm timetable 
for the complete withdrawal of Syrian 
armed forces from Lebanon. 

It is true that Syria is not the only 
nation with armed forces in Lebanon. 


May 28, 1993 

Israel maintains about 1.500 troops 
within a small security zone abutting 
the Israeli border in southern Lebanon. 
This resolution, however, does not deal 
with the Israeli Armed Forces which, 
unlike the Syrian troops, are in a de- 
fensive position. Northern Israel is 
under a constant threat of terrorist at- 
tack by Hizbollah and other extremist 
groups in southern Lebanon. Israel, 
furthermore, has no territorial claim 
on Lebanon and has pledged to remove 
its small military component once se- 
curity in northern Israel is ensured. 
Northern Israeli security would clearly 
be promoted by the removal of Syrian 
forces and the disarmament of non- 
governmental armed groups and mili- 
tias in Lebanon. While I hope and trust 
that Israeli troops would be withdrawn 
from Lebanon when conditions permit. 
I believe that our focus must be on 
Syria which continues to dominate the 
Lebanese political process. 

Since September 1992. the State De- 
partment has consistently urged Syria 
to honor its pledge to abide by Taif and 
to begin the withdrawal of its armed 
forces. I applaud Secretary of State 
Warren Christopher for adopting this 
position and encourage him to con- 
tinue to press Syria to remove its 
troops. Nevertheless, more than 8 
months have passed since Syria was to 
reach a decision on withdrawal of its 
armed forces to the gateway of the 
Bekaa. I believe that the time has 
come for Congress to express its pro- 
found displeasure at Syria's failure to 
comply with its pledge to uphold the 
terms of Taif. 

Because Syria is one of several na- 
tions guilty of sponsoring inter- 
national terrorism and committing 
human rights violations, it may not re- 
ceive direct United States assistance 
and United States directors of inter- 
national financial institutions must 
vote against all loans or credits for 
Syria. It is not likely that Syria will 
be removed from those lists of nations 
any time soon. Nevertheless, if Syria 
eventually becomes eligible for United 
States aid, I believe that the United 
States must consider the status of S^^r- 
ian troops in Lebanon before providing 
assistance to or voting for loans for 
Syria. 

Finally. I would like to express my 
concern about the conduct and result 
of elections which took place last Sep- 
tember in Lebanon. Truly free and fair 
elections in Lebanon are not possible 
in areas of foreign military control. 
With more than 35.000 Syrian troops 
occupying Lebanon and controlling 
many of the levers of governmental 
power. Damascus was able to influence 
the outcome of Lebanese elections. 
Furthermore, international observer 
units were not present to monitor the 
elections. Indeed, according to the 
State Department, there were * * * 
widespread reports of electoral irreg- 
ularities, which might have been obvi- 


May 28, 1993 

ated had there been foreign observers. 
The State Department also notes in its 
annual report on human rights: 

There were credible reports of the Syrian 
Government's involvement in the formation 
of candidacy ticket alliances, as well as 
widespread credible reports of irregularities 
in the voting and counting of ballots. The 
electoral rolls were themselves in many in- 
stances unreliable because of the destruction 
of records and the use of forged identifica- 
tion papers. 

As a result. State concluded and the 
resolution I introduce today agrees 
that the results of the elections do not 
reflect the full spectrum of the body 
politic of Lebanon. 

Mr. President, I am pleased that this 
country has consistently supported the 
restoration of Lebanese democracy. We 
must, nevertheless, step up our com- 
mitment to that nation's sovereignty 
and political independence. While I 
commend the participation of Syria 
and Lebanon in efforts to reach peace 
with Israel and I encourage their con- 
tinued cooperation in this regard, I be- 
lieve that Lebanon must not be lost in 
the diplomatic shuffle. By passing this 
resolution, the Senate makes a strong 
statement in favor of a free and demo- 
cratic Lebanon. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12073 


SENATE RESOLUTION 115— SENSE 
OF THE SENATE RELATIVE TO 
FOOD ASSISTANCE TO RUSSIA 

Mr. BROWN (for himself. Mr. PRES- 
SLER. Mr. DURENBERGER, Mrs. KASSE- 
BAUM, Mr. Grassley, Mr. NiCKLES. and 
Mr. CRAIG) submitted the following res- 
olution, which was referred to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Technology: 

S. Res. 115 

Whereas on April 3, 1993, in Vancouver, 
Canada, the President of the United States 
and the President of the Russian Federation 
announced a $1,600,000,000 aid package for 
Russia, including $700,000,000 in food assist- 
ance: 

Whereas the provision of food assistance 
announced at the Vancouver summit is a 
vital sign of United States support for Rus- 
sia's continued movement toward democracy 
and transition to a market economy: 

Whereas on May 3, 1993, the United States 
Government and the Government of Russia 
reached initial agreement on the $700,000,000 
in food assistance to be extended by the 
United States to Russia; 

Whereas the agreement stipulated that 
while $500,000,000 of the United States food 
aid package will be used for Russia to pur- 
chase United States agricultural commod- 
ities, the remaining $200,000,000, as estimated 
by the Administration, will be used solely to 
cover the cost of transportation: 

Whereas the Administration announced 
that 75 percent of the commodities would be 
shipped on United States-flag commercial 
vessels under United States cargo preference 
requirements; 

Whereas United States cargo preference 
laws require at least 75 percent of United 
States food assistance shipped overseas to be 
shipped on United States-flag commercial 
vessels; 

Whereas this requirement eliminates com- 
petition and encourages shippers to charge 


the United States Government rates two or 
three hundred percent above world market 
shipping rates; 

Whereas the current world market ship- 
ping rate is between $25 and $35 per metric 
ton: 

Whereas shippers, anticipating the elimi- 
nation of competition, have offered bids for 
shipping the grain to Russia between $75 and 
$138 per metric ton; 

Whereas these bids are up to 4 times great- 
er than comparable world rates; 

Whereas the cost of the grain itself is ap- 
proximately $100 per metric ton; 

Whereas the effect of the cargo preference 
requirements is to increase the cost of trans- 
portation so that it nearly equals or exceeds 
the cost of the grain itself; and 

Whereas the effect of the cargo preference 
requirements increase the taxpayer cost of 
assistance to Russia: Now, therefore, b^ it 

Resolved. That it is the sense of the Senate 
that— 

(1) the food assistance provided by the 
United States Government to Russia has 
been supported and approved to meet the 
dire humanitarian needs of the Russian peo- 
ple: 

(2) the increased cost of assistance to Rus- 
sia resulting from cargo preference require- 
ments could adversely affect the progress of 
democracy and market development in Rus- 
sia; 

(3) at a minimum, the President should not 
permit Federal agencies to accept bids from 
any carrier that are more than 50 percent 
above competitive world market ratet; and 

(4) the President should immediately exer- 
cise the temporary waiver authority of the 
cargo preference requirement in ; section 
901(b)(1) of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 
and permit Federal agencies to accept only 
bids that are competitive on the world mar- 
ket, thereby eliminating price-gouging for 
the transportation of Russian food assist- 
ance and ensuring that the greatest possible 
amount of assistance is provided to Rfussia. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Presideni U.S. 
cargo preference laws require a't least 
75 percent of U.S. food aid to be shipped 
on U.S. -flagged vessels. Not only has 
this requirement made our one? proud 
merchant marine less competitive, but 
it also has made our foreign as^stance 
programs more expensive and; ineffi- 
cient, i 

Faced with a crisis with regard to hu- 
manitarian food aid to the former So- 
viet Union, greedy shipowners have 
raised their shipment rates to uncon- 
scionable highs— almost five times the 
world market. 

Mr. President, this is a scandal. It is 
totally unacceptable that the Amer- 
ican people would be stuck with ship- 
ment rates that exceed even the value 
of the grain. There is no pretense that 
the rates they are charging are fair, or 
that even a half of the rates they are 
demanding are fair, or that even a 
third of the rates they are demanding 
are fair. This is a simple ripoff of the 
American taxpayer. 

This resolution urges the President 
to waive the cargo preference require- 
ment for Russian food aid, or at least 
not to accept bids that are more than 
50 percent above world market rates. 

I am pleased Senators DURENBERGER. 
Kassebaum. Grassley, Nickles. and 


Craig have joined with me in this ef- 
fort to stop this outrage. 


AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED 


CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN 

SPENDING LIMIT AND ELECTION 
REFORM ACT OF 1993 


DeCONCINI AMENDMENT NO. 388 

Mr. DeCONCINI proposed an amend- 
ment to amendment No. 366 (in the na- 
ture of a substitute) to the bill (S. 3) 
entitled the "Congressional Spending 
Limit and Election Reform Act of 
1993". as follows: 

On page 8. line 18. strike "67 percent" and 
insert "50 percent". 

On page 12, line 25, strike "$1,200,000 " and 
insert "$900,000 ". 

On page 13. line 2. strike "30 cents" and in- 
sert "21 cents". 

On page 13, line 5, strike "25 cents" and in- 
sert "-IS cents". 


AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO 
MEET 


SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 
AND REFUGEE AFFAIRS 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Sub- 
committee on Immigration and Refu- 
gee Affairs, of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, be authorized to meet dur- 
ing the session of the Senate on Fri- 
day. May 28. 1993, at 10 a.m., to hold a 
hearing on "Terrorism, Asylum Issues 
and U.S. Immigration Policy." 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 


ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS 


CATHERINE M. McCOTTRY HON- 
ORED BY CITY OF CHARLESTON 

• Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is 
the custom in my native Charleston for 
the mayor on occasion to designate a 
special day to honor a citizen who has 
made unique contributions to the com- 
munity. Mayor Joe Riley formally set 
aside this past Sunday, May 23, as 
Catherine M. McCottry Day, a richly 
deserved tribute to a magnificent 
Charlestonian. 

Dr. McCottry graduated from Howard 
Medical School in 1945, and established 
a practice in Charleston in 1952. In 
those early years, she was a pioneering 
black woman physician, breaking down 
barriers in an overwhelmingly white 
male profession. Dr. McCottry's ex- 
traordinary struggle culminated in her 
appointment in 1962 as a staff member 
with full rights and privileges at St. 
Francis Hospital. While serving at St. 
Francis Hospital, she also maintained 


12074 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


her strong commitment to McClennan- 
Banks. the predominantly black hos- 
pital which she had struggled to keep 
open for years. 

Since her retirement in 1987, Dr. 
McCottry has remained active with the 
American Cancer Society and as an 
outspoken advocate on women's health 
issues. 

Mr. President, for four decades. Dr. 
Catherine McCottry has given and 
given and given to the Charleston com- 
munity. She has given her talents as a 
physician, and she has given her lead- 
ership as a community activist. But 
most importantly she has given us her 
personal example as a courageous, 
pathbreaking citizen deeply committed 
to public service.* 


TRIBUTE TO THE 1993 OSAKIS 
FOURTH GRADE 

• Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, 
today. I would like to share with my 
colleagues the story of a group of 
fourth graders in Osakis, MN, who have 
had a very productive school year. 
With encouragement from parents, 
teachers, and community leaders, they 
incorporated architectural design, 
community pride, and recreation into a 
school project. It is apparent that the 
class of 2001 is proud of a local tradi- 
tion that occurs when the surface of 
Lake Osakis becomes still for the win- 
ter. 

When the ice thickens over Lake 
Osakis. hundreds of ice fishing houses 
dot the lake. Ice fishing offers recre- 
ation and fresh food for fishing enthu- 
siasts, but Osakis fourth graders de- 
cided to add a new dimension to this 
local tradition by building 8-by-8-by-8- 
inch models of their own dream 
fishhouse. Many students made card- 
board models using abstract elements; 
others used creative concepts like 
using playing cards to paint a full 
house, or made a pattern using the 
spots of a cow, or painted a fairly tale 
gingerbread house. 

This project seemed to grow by leaps 
and bounds as community volunteers 
became involved. Brian McMahon, co- 
organizer and architect, shared his 
knowledge with art teacher. Gretchen 
Resley. and her fourth grade art class. 
As the word traveled about their school 
project, the Osakis Heritage Center 
featured the students' projects in an 
exhibit called "Thinking About 
Fishhouses." Local businesses, such as 
First National Bank of Osakis. Gillis 
Drug and General Store, and McDon- 
alds became involved when they offered 
prizes to the best fishhouses. Even the 
Minnesota chapter of the American In- 
stitute of Architects heard about the 
project and invited the students to dis- 
play their fishhouse concepts and mod- 
els at an annual design conference in 
Duluth. 

The curriculum for the project was 
supported by the Osakis Fish House 


Project Committee. Members of this 
committee are Jerry Hanson, principal: 
Gretchen Resley. art teacher; Sandy 
Benson and Ivy Nomeland, fourth 
Grade teachers; Julia Hanson, gifted 
students teacher; Bruce Dehkes, of 
Bruce's Bait and Tackle Shop, and 
Brian McHanon, of ABC Design. This 
committee has also discussed an idea 
to build an actual fishhouse. featuring 
room for five or six students inside the 
house, and featuring slides, swings, and 
snowball targets outside the house. 
During the warm seasons in Minnesota, 
such a fishhouse could be used on a 
local playground. 

Congratulations and best wishes to 
the class of 2001. I wish them best of 
luck whenever the young anglers drill 
away the ice and drop in their line. 
And a special recognition belongs to 
these fine teachers, business people, 
and community leaders, who have 
found a way to unlock the boundless 
creativity and energy in these young 
people. May their success be an encour- 
agement to parents and educators 
across the country." 


May 28, 1993 

My deepest sympathies go out to his 
wife and family.* 


TRIBUTE TO TED VALLIERE 

• Mr. SASSER. Mr. President. I rise 
today to pay tribute to Ted Valliere. 
the former director of governmental 
retlations at the National Association 
of Postmasters, who passed away on 
Tuesday after a fight with cancer. Ted 
was well known and respected by many 
in this body, and his friendship and 
counsel will be sorely missed. 

Over the course of 40 years of service 
at the post office and as a representa- 
tive of postal concerns. Ted has spent 
much of his life improving working 
conditions for others while developing 
a reputation for fairness and loyalty 
for himself. Those of us who came to 
know Ted valued his opinions and came 
to rely on him for his political and pro- 
fessional judgment. 

Ted was also a proud family man who 
spoke often of his wife. Anne, and his 
large family of children and grand- 
children. 

Ted's leadership in the postal field 
set a high standard for his peers and 
for those who would follow in his foot- 
steps. Rising from his position as a 
postal clerk and local union official in 
Canton. OH. Ted moved to Washington 
in the early 1970's to head a division of 
the American Postal Workers Union. 
Ted went on the teach at the Postal 
Service Management Academy and 
serve as an editor and legislative rep- 
resentative at the National Association 
of Postal Suprevisors before beginning 
his work with the postmasters. 

Every now and then, we come across 
extraordinary individuals who are not 
only leaders in their chosen fields of 
endeavor but also in their everyday 
lives. Ted was just such an individual, 
and his memory will live on for years 
to come. 


TRIBUTE TO RAYMOND DEXTER 
THOMAS, SR. 

• Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 
today I rise to honor a distinguished 
American citizen, Mr. Raymond Dexter 
Thomas, Sr., of Ewing, VA. On June 2, 
1993. Mr. Thomas will celebrate the 
anniversary of his 51st year of 
employment with the Middlesboro, 
KY. branch of the H.T. Hackney Co. 
of Knoxville. TN. 

Mr. Thomas was bom on January 31, 
1923, in Baxter, KY, and was the second 
eldest of 13 children born to Jim Seal 
and Vola Brooks Thomas. Mr. Thomas 
began his long and distinguished career 
with the H.T. Hackney Co. on June 2, 
1942. His career was briefly interrupted 
on January 28, 1943, when he was in- 
ducted into the U.S. Army. Mr. Thom- 
as served in England, France, and Ger- 
many with the 479th Ordnance Evacu- 
ation Company during World War II. 
After receiving this honorable dis- 
charge from the Army on January 4, 
1946, Mr. Thomas resumed his employ- 
ment with the H.T. Hackney Co. soon 
after his return from Europe. 

On December 5, 1950, Mr. Thomas 
married the former Wandaleen Fern 
Payne. They have three children: 
Karen Thomas Peevely of Rogersville, 
TN; Kathy Thomas Cheek of Lexing- 
ton, KY; and Raymond Dexter Thomas 
II, of Arlington, VA. Mr. and Mrs. 
Thomas are also the proud grand- 
parents of Thomas Seth and Meghan 
Lyn-Elizabeth Peevely, and James Mi- 
chael Cheek. 

I congratulate Mr. Thomas on his 
life-long achievements and salute his 
contributions to society as a valued 
citizen of these United States of Amer- 
ica.* 


COY JOHNSTON: AWARD-WINNING 
SOUTH CAROLINA CONSERVA- 
TIONIST 

• Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, each 
year the Chevron Corp. recognizes 
Americans who have made an out- 
standing sustained contribution to the 
cause of environmental protection in 
our country. One of the 1993 recipients 
of the prestigious Chevron Conserva- 
tion Award is Coy Johnston of Sum- 
merville, SC. He was presented the 
award earlier this month for his superb 
work and leadership in establishing 
South Carolina's ACE Basin National 
Estuarine Reserve, protecting in per- 
petuity one of our Nation's premier 
wetlands and estuarine sanctuaries. 

Mr. Johnston, a top official with 
Ducks Unlimited and the Wetlands 
America Trust, was a tireless catalyst 
in persuading diverse groups to work 
together in protecting the ACE Basin. 
He worked long and hard negotiating 
conservation easements and acquiring 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12075 


thousands of acres of wetlands from 
willing landowners so as to rescue the 
ACE Basin habitat from development. I 
worked closely with Coy in realizing 
the dream of a protected ACE Basin, 
and I can testify it wouldn't have hap- 
pened without this extraordinary dedi- 
cation and commitment. 

Mr. President, I salute Coy Johnston 
and congratulate him for being hon- 
ored with the Chevron Conservation 
Award. It is a high tribute to a man 
who has made a very real difference in 
preserving South Carolina's natural 
heritage.* 


TRIBUTE TO VANCEBURG 
• Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I 
rise today to pay tribute to the town of 
Vanceburg in Lewis County. 

Vanceburg is a small town nestled in 
the Ohio River Valley, bordering the 
Cumberland plateau of the Appalachian 
Mountains in the northeastern part of 
the State. 

Located on the lawn of the Lewis 
County Courthouse is the only Civil 
War monument south of the Mason- 
Dixon line that celebrates the Union 
and condemns the Confederacy. The in- 
scription on the monument reads, "The 
war for the Union was right, everlast- 
ingly right. And the war against the 
Union was wrong, forever wrong." 

In spite of a few disappointments in 
the area of economic development, 
Vanceburg residents remain optimistic 
about the future. Several local officials 
have hinted about new industries that 
may be interested in moving to Lewis 
County. Construction of a major high- 
way that would connect Vanceburg 
with other northern Kentucky sites has 
resumed. This means a good chance for 
new growth in Vanceburg and Lewis 
County. 

I applaud Vanceburg's citizens for 
their optimism and determination, as 
well as their efforts to bring new indus- 
try and jobs to the community. 

Mr. President, I ask that this tribute 
and a recent article from Louisville's 
Courier-Journal be submitted in to- 
day's Record. 

The material follows: 
Vanceburg 
(By John Voskuhl) 

It was just about 40 years after the War Be- 
tween the States that the unthinkable hap- 
pened In Vanceburg. 

Here's how one historical account de- 
scribed it: 

•■. . . A prominent lady, passing- a Fourth 
of July celebration, shrieked, 'Hurraw for 
Jeff Davis! ■ and narrowly escaped being 
mobbed by the other ladies in the audience." 

Cooler heads prevailed, as is the wont 
among Vanceburg's cooler heads. There was 
no ugly mob scene among the town's proper, 
prominent women. 

But what made the incident unthinkable 
was the mere suggestion that Jefferson 
Davis— or any of his Confederate confed- 
erates — could elicit a hurraw from a 
Vanceburg resident. 


Consider the Civil War monument that 
stands on the lawn of the Lewis County 
Courthouse. According to the accompanying 
historical marker, it is the only Civil War 
monument south of the Mason-Dixon line 
that celebrates the Union and condemns the 
Confederacy. 

"The war for the union was right, everlast- 
ingly right," says an inscription on the 
Monument. "And the war against the union 
was wrong, forever wrong." 

That says a lot about the little town on 
the bank of the Ohio River. It's a place 
where people make their choices and stick to 
them. Today, more than a century after the 
Civil War. the party of Abraham Lincoln 
dominates Lewis County politics. And tradi- 
tional values dominate county philosophies. 

Take Jack Osman. owner and proprietor of 
Osman's Pharmacy since the early 1960s. 

•I've been away from here 11 days in 31 
years — that's not bad." Osman said. "People 
say. -Why don't you take a day or two off?' 
I say. A day or two off would just spoil 
you."' 

He hardly ever takes a night off. either. 
"Hardly a day goes by that I don't get a call 
late at night." he said. Osman said he's filled 
more late-night prescriptions for anxious 
parents than he can remember. 

In Osman's drugstore, there's a small serv- 
ing area where folks gather each weekday 
morning to solve the problems of the world 
over a cup of coffee. One problem they don't 
have; A cup of coffee with breakfast costs a 
dime. 

"If you don't have anything to eat. we 
have to charge a quarter. " Osman said. 

Back in the 1960s, the pharmacy had a pin- 
ball machine and a jukebox and some of 
those high-backed booths that afforded pri- 
vacy for Osman's teen-age clientele. But the 
pinball machine and jukebox made it hard to 
concentrate on prescriptions. Osman said, so 
he got rid of them. 

And the booths were lost when the phar- 
macy moved to its current location in 1968. 
Things changed. 

"We still have a lot of teen-agers." Osman 
said- "But we're not really a loafing place." 

Some folks bemoan a perceived dearth of 
loafing places in Vanceburg. 

"Really, you've got to jump in your car if 
you want to do much socializing. " said Lewis 
County Attorney Clayton Lykins. "There's 
no real place for just loafing." 

Of course, loafing is not necessarily among 
the chief public ambitions in any town. 
Therefore, a county attorney could be ex- 
cused for not knowing about his town's loaf- 
ing spots. For example, there's Hickle's Pool 
Lunch, which has operated downtown since 
1945. On a recent weekday afternoon, none of 
the customers admitted to loafing, but by 
the same token, few of them were moving 
around much. * 

Proprietor Eugene "Snook" Hickle said 
some Vanceburg residents take a dim view of 
his establishment because it serves beer. 

"I can tell you this— this town is dead." he 
said. 

To a degree, such dim views are justified. 
Unemployment in Lewis County stood at 15.6 
percent in February, the last month for 
which figures were available. Moreover, the 
county's attempts at economic develop- 
ment—though filled with glorious promise 
for the future— are stalled. 

In 1990. local officials learned that Lewis 
County was in the running for a paper mill 
that would employ 400 people. Mead Corp.. 
the paper company, began trying to buy up 
land. But by 1991. the company announced 
that it was putting its expansion plans on 
hold until late in the decade. 


More recently, the county lost another em- 
ployer. Sany Metals. 

On the positive side, several local officials 
have hinted about new industries that may 
be interested in moving to Lewis County — 
though no formal announcements have been 
made. 

t'art of the attraction of the area is the AA 
Htehway. The AA Highway, which was con- 
caved as a way to tie together Northern 
Kentucky's counties, was so named because 
it^was supposed to reach from Alexandria in 
Campbell County to Ashland in Boyd Coun- 

3ut the best-laid plans of mice and men oft 
go awry, and the best-laid plans of the state 
Hi«-hway Department oft make the mice look 
like experts. The AA Highway never made it 
to Ashland. It petered out in Lewis County, 
a. few miles east of Vanceburg. 

Vanceburg had no really good roads before 
the new highway, so it had always lagged be- 
hind places like Maysville in commercial de- 
velopment. While the Maysvilles of the world 
w<)und up with roads and bridges and the 
like. Vanceburg did without. 

';The pork barrel projects, traditionally, 
are built in counties that are Democratic." 
Lykins noted. 

The new AA Highway only compounded the 
problem, making it easier for folks to go 
west to Maysville for their shopping. In a 
sense. Vanceburg became the town at the 
e<ld of the road, waiting for connections to 
other major highways. 

Work has already begun on two spurs for 
the AA Highway. The first will connect it to 
U.S. 23 in Greenup County: the second to I- 
64' in Carter County. Local officials are hopp- 
ing that both will mean new growth for the 
community. 

fl look to have a tremendous amount of 
trtick traffic on our roads." said Mayor Bill 
Tom Cooper. 

Of course, good roads also produce a kind 
of motorized culture that's always going 
somewhere else. And Vanceburg is already 
seeing some of that because of the AA High- 
w(ay, said Lykins. the county attorney. 

(Folks depend on local merchants less — and 
bjegin to depend on each other less, he said. 

"It seems like the town is become smaller. 
Wut less of a small town." he said. 
' Cooper echoed that sentiment. 

"I've seen a lot of changes, but I'm not 
really sure they're good changes in our com- 
munity." he said. 

Gone are the movie theater and the Grey- 
hound bus station. Gone are several clothing 
stores and restaurants. Those businesses 
that remain are looking at hard times. 

"Business is extremely slow at this time." 
said Cooper, a local developer. "Business 
people are really having to watch their Ps 
and Q's." 

Lots of people depend on public-assistance 
checks, said Osman. the pharmacist. But to 
merchants, that's OK. he said. 

"They're the ones that spend money." he 
said. "The ones who make money are sock- 
ing it away and saving it." 

The savings accounts of Vanceburg should 
be fat and sassy if the city's own books are 
any indication. The town has a surplus of 
$800,000 invested in certificates of deposit. 
Cooper said. 

"We probably are one of the richest little 
towns in the state." he said. 

And it seems that there's more coming in 
every day: a $500,000 block grant to tear 
down old houses and put families into new 
houses: a $1 million housing grant to build 
three-, four- and five-bedroom apartments 
for low-income families; an $83,000 state 


12076 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


grant for building a new day-care facility 
with $72,000 more to pay operating costs. 

•I haven't failed to go to Frankfort" to 
ask for money. Cooper said. 

Perhaps he was inspired by Helen Rayburn. 
who might accurately be called the mother 
of the Lewis County Public Library. Since 
the 1950s, with constant pleas for help from 
local -friends of the library." Rayburn has 
helped build and maintain a library that's 
grown to occupy two floors of a large down- 
town building. 

"We started with a 'oookmobile and 800 
books." she said. 

The entire community has watched it 
grow— just as they're ready to watch the rest 
of Lewis County blossom. For Osman. it's 
that sort of anticipation that makes life in 
Vanceburg special. He recalled that a friend 
always said he wanted to live in towns that 
were behind the times and then grow up with 
them. That's possible in Vanceburg. he said. 

"It's about 50 years behind the times." he 
said. "'Vou can grow with the area over the 
years. If you go to a larger town, it's already 
reached a plateau." 

Population (1990): Vanceburg. 1.713; Lewis 
County. 13.029. 

Per capital income (1990): Lewis County. 
S10.513. or $4,452 below the state average. 

Jobs: Manufacturing. 1.135; state/local gov- 
ernment. 458; wholesale retail trade. 254; 
services. 187. 

Big employers: U.S. Shoes Corp.. 850 em- 
ployees; Vanceburg Health Care Inc.. 80; Citi- 
zens Deposit Bank. 50; First National Bank. 
50; Stolle Manufacturing. 42. 

Education: Lewis County Schools. 2.680 
students. 

Media: Newspaper— Lewis County Herald, 
weekly. Radio— WKKS-AM (country) and 
WKKS-FM (country). 

Transportation: Air— Fleming-Mason Air- 
port in Mason County, about 25 miles. Near- 
est commercial service Is Tri-State Airport. 
Huntington. W.Va.. about 60 miles. Rail— 
CSX Corp. Roads — Vanceburg is served by 
the AA Highway and by state routes 8. 10 and 
59. 

Topography: Vanceburg is nestled in the 
Ohio River valley, which quickly gives way 
to the foothills of the Cumberland plateau of 
the Appalachian Mountains. 

FAMOUS F.\CTS .\ND FIGURES 

Three communities have served as the seat 
of Lewis County. The first was Popular Flat. 
where a courthouse was built in 1806. In 1810. 
a second courthouse was built at Clarksburg. 
In December 1863. Vanceburg was finally ap- 
proved as the county seat. 

The land on which Vanceburg was built 
was purchased from Alexander K. Marshall, 
the brother of John Marshall, the chief jus- 
tice of the United States, in 1797. 

Esculapia Springs, a resort that drew visi- 
tors from Cincinnati, was one of the hottest 
spots in Lewis County— and probably in Ken- 
tucky—in the 19th century. It was destroyed 
by fire in 1860. 

Lewis County is home to one of Kentucky's 
13 remaining covered bridges, the Cabin 
Creek Bridge, which was built in 1873. 

Visitors to Lewis County may be torn be- 
tween visiting Bruce or Upperbruce. Then 
there's the pastoral-sounding Cottageville. 
or the unpastoral-sounding Firebrick. Other 
great names for Lewis County communities 
Include Tannery. Kinniconick and Wishbone. 


NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF 

HEALTH REVITALIZATION ACT 
OF 1993— CONFERENCE REPORT 
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I sub- 
mit a report of the committee of con- 


ference on S. 1 and ask for its imme- 
diate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re- 
port will be stated. 
The legislative clerk read as follows: 
The committee of conference on the dis- 
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
amendment of the House to the bill (S. 1) to 
amend the Public Health Service Act to re- 
vise and extend the programs of the National 
Institutes of Health, and for other purposes, 
having met. after full and free conference, 
have agreed to recommend and do rec- 
ommend to their respective Houses this re- 
port, signed by a majority of the conferees. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference re- 
port. 

(The conference report is printed in 
the House proceedings of the Record of 
May 20. 1993.) 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a 
privilege to bring before the Senate the 
conference report on S. 1, the National 
Institutes of Health ReautJliorization 
Act. This measure passed the Senate 
by a vote of 93 to 4 earlier this year, 
and it deserves equally strong support 
now. 

This legislation reaffirms our strong 
support for biomedical research in the 
years ahead. It is designed to ensure 
America's preeminent role in this vital 
research as we move toward the 21st 
century. 

In the past half century, the NIH has 
supported the work of over half a mil- 
lion scientists including 81 Nobel Prize 
winners. Scientific and medical break- 
throughs supported by the NIH have 
lengthened the lives and improved the 
health of millions of Americans. We 
must do all we can to build on that 
outstanding record for the future. 

Support for the NIH by the American 
people. Congress, and the administra- 
tion is overwhelming. This legislation 
offers hope for every member of our so- 
ciety—for women concerned about 
breast cancer, osteoporosis, heart dis- 
ease, lupus, and multiple sclerosis; for 
children suffering from juvenile arthri- 
tis, congenital heart defects, asthma, 
and cystic fibrosis; for men concerned 
about prostate cancer; and for millions 
of Americans suffering from chronic 
illnesses like AIDS, Alzheimer's dis- 
ease, Parkinson's disease, chronic fa- 
tigue syndrome, and diabetes. 

This bill will strengthen and expand 
research efforts at the National Cancer 
Institute, the National Heart, Lung, 
and Blood Institute, the National Insti- 
tute on Aging, the National Library of 
Medicine, and at the other institutes 
and centers at the NIH. 

It makes major progress toward end- 
ing the Nation's long and shameful ne- 
glect of women's health. The bill will 
end the shocking lack of women in 
clinical trials. It will dramatically in- 
crease the resources for research on 
diseases of greatest concern to 
women— an additional $325 million will 
be available for breast cancer, an addi- 


tional $75 million for ovarian, cervical, 
and reproductive cancer, and an addi- 
tional $40 million for osteoporosis re- 
search. 

The bill will require the NIH to de- 
velop and implement a comprehensive 
plan for the prevention, early detec- 
tion, and treatment of breast cancer. 
And it will provide a statutory basis 
for the Office of Women's Health, to as- 
sure that all health issues concerning 
women receive the attention they de- 
serve at the highest levels of the NIH. 
American women need this legislation, 
and they deserve it to become law now. 

A key feature of this bill is that it 
will at last allow research on fetal tis- 
sue transplantation to proceed. Such 
research offers real hope to sufferers 
from Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's 
disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, 
and other serious illnesses. 

It was the controversy over fetal tis- 
sue transplantation research that pre- 
vented this legislation from being en- 
acted last year. Congress struggled to 
do the right thing in the face of intense 
Presidential opposition. Now, with 
President Clinton's help and support, 
this important research can provide, 
free of the ideological roadblocks that 
have no place in biomedical research. 

The two diseases that kill the most 
Americans are ?till cancer and heart 
disease. It is not surprising, therefore, 
that the National Cancer Institute and 
the National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, are the largest of the Insti- 
tutes of the NIH. The initiatives funded 
by this legislation will keep these at 
the cutting edge of scientific discovery 
and bring new progress against these 
diseases. 

We have already witnessed many 
promising advances in diagnosis and 
treatment of cancers that have the po- 
tential to improve longevity and the 
quality of life. Under this legislation, 
we intend the National Cancer Insti- 
tute to place new emphasis on applied 
research and demonstration projects 
that will yield new information and 
technology in cancer prevention and 
control, so that advances in the labora- 
tory can be rapidly implemented na- 
tionwide by the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention. 

This legislation also reauthorizes and 
revitalizes the Office of AIDS Research 
at the NIH, and will ensure that it has 
the leadership and the tools to get the 
job done. To wage an effective battle 
against AIDS, it is time to put a struc- 
ture in place for long range strategic 
planning, coordination, and evaluation. 
A research effort of this importance 
and magnitude requires these steps, so 
that we can coordinate the efforts of 
all the institutes at NIH and achieve a 
more coherent national AIDS research 
program. 

In addition, this legislation estab- 
lishes an AIDS discretionary fund, so 
that the Office of AIDS Research can 
move quickly to take advantage of new 


May 28, 1993 

opportunities. These funds will enable 
the Office to respond to the expanding 
knowledge base, or take immediate ad- 
vantage of a sudden breakthrough. It 
will ensure that possibilities for 
progress are not bogged down in bu- 
reaucracy, but are sized in an expedi- 
tious and responsible manner. 

Research efforts supported by the Na- 
tional Heart. Lung, and Blood Institute 
have significantly reduced the death 
and disability associated wjth heart 
disease — the number one killer in the 
United States. Funding for the Na- 
tional Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
has increased at less than half the 
overall rate for the NIH during the past 
decade. The Institute estimates that it 
will be able to fund 3,319 grants in fis- 
cal year 1993, 103 fewer than in fiscal 
year 1992. This bill authorizes a 25-per- 
cent increase over fiscal year 1993 ap- 
propriations so that the Institute can 
fully fund and actually increase the 
number of new and competing grants. 

Other provisions in the bill will do 
the following: 

A nutritional disorders and obesity 
research program will be established at 
the National Institute on Diabetes and 
Digestive and Kidney Disease. 

Juvenile arthritis research will be 
strengthened at the National Institute 
on Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and 
Skin Disease. 

The National Institute on Aging will 
continue its Alzheimer's Disease Reg- 
istry to track this chronic debilitating 
disease; the Institute will also expand 
its research on the aging process in 
women. 

The National Institute of Allergy and 
Infectious Disease will expand its re- 
search on tropical diseases and on 
chronic fatigue syndrome. 

The National Institute of Child 
Health and Human Development will 
establish an intramural program in 
gynecology and obstetrics, and expe- 
dite the transfer of basic research to 
the bedside through the establishment 
of child health research centers. 

The National Eye Institute will de- 
velop a research program to prevent 
blindness in diabetics. 

The National Library of Medicine, 
the world's best medical library, will 
expand its high performance computer 
network, so that up-to-date scientific 
information on diagnosis and treat- 
ment can be readily available to the of- 
fices of individual physicians through- 
out the country. Even the most iso- 
lated health care providers will have 
opportunities for access to the latest 
medical information and for consulta- 
tions with experts around the country. 

Another important provision in the 
conference report directs the Secretary 
to conduct a study of the relationship 
between illegal and legal drugs. I look 
forward to the Secretary's review of 
the most current information on the 
extent to which tobacco and alcohol 
use by adolescents serve as a gateway 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12077 


to illicit drug use. The study should 
also examine the comparative health 
effects of legal and illegal drugs. 

Finally, on a separate issue, the bill 
codifies the Bush administration's 
practice of including HIV infection on 
the list of communicable diseases of 
public health significance for immigra- 
tion purposes. That provision is unwise 
and many of us opposed it, because it 
takes an important public health deci- 
sion out of the hands of the Public 
Health Service. Rather than doing any- 
thing to protect the public health, this 
provision simply panders to prejudice. 

However, under this compromise, the 
Attorney General will continue to have 
authority under the immigration laws 
to determine which immigrants, refu- 
gees, and other visitors with HIV dis- 
ease and AIDS will be permitted to 
enter the United States. I am confident 
that Attorney General Reno will use 
this waiver authority with thoughtful- 
ness and compassion, but it would be 
far preferable for the Department of 
Health and Human Services to retain 
the authority to remove HIV from the 
list altogether. 

Overall, this is an excellent bill and 
both the Senate and the House can.be 
proud of their achievement. The NIH 
has been and continues to be the Na- 
tion's wisest health research invest- 
ment. It is combating the diseases of 
today and training the scientists of to- 
morrow. With the passage of this meas- 
ure, we are recognizing the vital impor- 
tance of biomedical research to the Na- 
tion's future. I urge the Senate to ap- 
prove this essential legislation and 
send it to President Clinton for his sig- 
nature. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise to 
express my disappointment over provi- 
sions included in the conference agree- 
ment on S. 1, the National Institutes of 
Health Revitalization Act of 1993. 
These provisions were not in the Sen- 
ate-passed bill. Specifically, I refer to 
title IV, section 417B(D)(1), which 
states that of the moneys appropriated 
to the National Cancer Institute, not 
less than 7 percent in fiscal year 1994, 
and not less than 9 percent in fiscal 
year 1995 and' not less then 10 percent 
in fiscal year 1996 shall be used for can- 
cer control activities. A similar floor is 
established in title XV, subtitle C, 
which states that not less than 5 per- 
cent of the amounts appropriated for 
the Center for Human Genome shall be 
used for review and funding of propos- 
als to address the ethical and legal is- 
sues associated with the genome 
project. These provisions infringe on 
the jurisdiction of the Appropriations 
Committees. 

I will continue my strong support for 
NIH. As majority leader, as minority 
leader, and as chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee I have time 
an(i again fought to protect funding for 
NIH, and I will continue my efforts. 

However, when set asides and floors 
are established in the authorizing leg- 


islation, it seriously ties the hands of 
the Appropriations Committees, espe- 
cially in these very tough budgetary 
times. 

I do not plan to oppose the con- 
ference agreement in this instance. 
However, as chairman of the Appro- 
priations Committee, I would be remiss 
if I did not make my position clear. 

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I 
speak today in support of the con- 
ference report on S. 1, the National In- 
stitutes of Health [NIH] Revitalization 
Act of 1993. This report represents a 
reasonable compromise on the dif- 
ferences between the Senate and House 
bills. I will vote for its passage, and I 
urge my colleagues to do the same. 

The NIH is the centerpiece of the 
emerging American biomedical re- 
search enterprise. We look to the NIH 
to solve medical mysteries and find 
cures for debilitating and often deadly 
illnesses. Recently, NIH-sponsored re- 
search discovered the gene which is 
thought to cause cancer of the colon. 
This discovery could eventually lead to 
the end of this illness. Just as the NIH 
is attacking colon cancer, it may one 
day discover the cause of breast cancer, 
an illness which strikes one out of 
every nine women. In addition, NIH- 
sponsored research could result in a 
vaccine against the deadly HIV virus, 
which infects many of our Nation's 
women, children, and men. 

As the Senator from Massachusetts 
has already outlined, the NIH con- 
ference report contains many good pro- 
visions. It reauthorizes the two largest 
Institutes, the National Cancer Insti- 
tute and the National Heart, Lung, and 
Blood Institute. I am particularly 
pleased that it contains the women's 
health research initiative, which Sen- 
ator MiKULSKi and others, including 
me, worked to have included. Further- 
more, research authorized by the bill 
will lead to improvements in the 
health of our Nation's children. 

Mr. President, I am pleased the NIH 
conference report permanently codifies 
the ban on the immigration of HIV-in- 
fected individuals. In February, the 
Senate voted to support an amendment 
to the NIH bill which would prohibit 
the immigration of HIV-infected indi- 
viduals. This amendment was offered 
by Senator Nickles and passed the 
Senate by a vote of 76 to 23. While the 
House bill did not include a similar 
provision, its conferees were instructed 
to support the Nickles amendment. 
The conference report before us today 
permanently codifies an HIV immigra- 
tion ban in a manner similar to the 
Nickles amendment. I continue to sup- 
port such a ban because of my concern 
about the potential financial costs 
such immigrants pose to an already be- 
leaguered American health care sys- 
tem. 

The conference report meets the pri- 
mary objective of the Nickles amend- 
ment — it codifies the HIV immigration 


12078 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


ban. Furthermore, the report language 
assures that two secondary objectives 
of the Nickles amendment are met, 
even though these measures are not 
codified. First, the Nickles amendment 
would have required that the current 
practice of testing all immigrants for 
HIV remain in place. Second, it would 
have codified the current Department 
of Justice practice which allows a 30- 
day visitation waiver for HIV-infected 
individuals to enter the country for 
medical treatment, conferences, or 
business. Report language clearly ex- 
presses the intent of the conferees that 
these current administrative practices 
remain in place. As such, I urge the at- 
torney general to follow the intent of 
the conferees in this matter. 

Regrettably, I was unable to sign the 
conference report as a manager on the 
part of the Senate. The final HIV im- 
migration provision was completed less 
than 24 hours before the report was for- 
mally submitted. At the time the con- 
ference report was submitted, I was 
consulting with my colleagues on the 
sensitive HIV immigration issue. Such 
deliberation often takes time. Unfortu- 
nately — due to artificial time con- 
straints imposed by the House sched- 
ule — the report was filed shortly before 
I concluded my consultations. In the 
future, I urge my colleagues to allow 
sufficient time for deliberation and 
consultation on such important issues. 

Mr. President, this report contains 
many provisions which will lead to im- 
provements in women's health. The 
limited attention NIH has traditionally 
paid to women's health is well known. 
To help remedy this situation, the re- 
port contains provisions which require 
the inclusion of women in all appro- 
priate clinical trials. This report also 
authorizes the NIH Office on Women's 
Health Research, which currently is co- 
ordinating and seeding women's health 
research efforts throughout the Insti- 
tutes. Finally, this bill authorizes 
much needed research on women's dis- 
eases such as breast cancer, oste- 
oporosis, uterine fibroids, and contra- 
ception. 

I am pleased the report also includes 
an immunization research initiative. 
The costly and complicated vaccine 
regimen, which requires multiple shots 
on multiple visits, acts as a barrier to 
adequate immunizations. Research au- 
thorized by this report should lead to 
cheaper and more easily administered 
multicomponent vaccines. Coupled 
with the immunization legislation Sen- 
ator Kennedy and I recently crafted to 
improve the delivery infrastructure, 
this initiative should lead to improve- 
ments in childhood immunizations— 
and thus, prevent deadly childhood dis- 
eases. 

The conference report increases the 
authorization for the National Cancer 
Institute above the $2.2 billion found in 
the Senate bill. Together with funding 
devoted to breast, reproductive tract. 


and prostate cancer research, cancer 
research authorized for the NIH will 
equal the National Cancer institute 
budget request of $3.2 billion. This 
total represents a reasonable com- 
promise between the House and the 
Senate, and should result in new can- 
cer prevention and treatment develop- 
ments. 

Mr. President, the conference report 
includes a House provision which es- 
tablishes an Office of Behavioral Re- 
search at NIH. I remain skeptical of 
the need for this office, which is to co- 
ordinate the NIH-wide behavioral re- 
search effort. However, I am pleased 
the conferees accepted my rec- 
ommendations to limit the staffing of 
the Office and prohibit it from con- 
ducting research directly. While these 
disease-specific offices may appear to 
offer enhanced research potential, they 
often utilize valuable financial re- 
sources which would be better applied 
to direct research. 

As the Members of this body know, 
both the Senate and the House NIH 
bills included provisions designed to 
improve NIH AIDS research. The AIDS 
research provisions included in the 
conference report are a compromise be- 
tween the similar House and the Sen- 
ate measures. It is my hope these pro- 
visions will lead to promising develop- 
ments in HIV prevention and treat- 
ment. Like the Senate version, the 
conference report includes my rec- 
ommendations to protect ongoing HIV 
research and limit the Office of AIDS 
Research bureaucracy. 

In conclusion, reauthorizing research 
at the National Institutes of Health is 
an important investment for the Amer- 
ican people. The NIH conference report 
refiects 2 years of careful deliberations 
by this body. For their involvement in 
the development and passage of this 
legislation, I commend Senator 
IJENENDY, Senator H.\TCH, and Rep- 
resentative Waxman. In addition, I 
wish to thank my fellow conferees for 
their efforts on the conference report. 
This bipartisan bill will lead to im- 
proved health for all Americans, and I 
urge my colleagues to support its adop- 
tion. 

Mr. HATFIELD. I rise today in sup- 
port of the conference report to accom- 
pany the NIH Revitalization Act of 
1993. Included in this report is legisla- 
tion I introduced earlier in the 103d 
Congress to establish a National Center 
for Sleep Disorders Research within 
the National Heart, Lung and Blood In- 
stitute of the National Institutes of 
Health. By creating a National Center 
for Sleep Disorders Research, we are 
taking an important step toward solv- 
ing the multifaceted problems associ- 
ated with sleep disorders. 

Since the Senate last considered this 
legislation, several additional tragic 
accidents have occurred in the United 
States related to sleep deprivation. Un- 
fortunately, one of these recently oc- 


May 28, 1993 

curred in my own State of Oregon, in- 
volving a family from Walla Walls, WA. 
Four members of the Manual family 
were killed on Easter Sunday of this 
year when the driver of a pickup appar- 
ently fell asleep at the wheel and 
plowed into the family's minivan as 
the Manuel's returned from a weekend 
visit to the Oregon coast. Since the ac- 
cident, the Oregon Department of 
State Police has communicated that 
sleeping drivers pose a considerable 
problem to public safety from a law en- 
forcement perspective. Aggressive edu- 
cation about sleep deprivation and dis- 
orders is a critical factor in reducing 
this problem. 

The establishment of a National Cen- 
ter for Sleep Disorders Research will 
have a tremendous effect on the mil- 
lions of Americans who suffer the dev- 
astating effects of sleep disorders. The 
National Commission on Sleep Dis- 
orders Research, established by Con- 
gress in 1988, found that sleep disorders 
exact a tremendous toll on our Na- 
tion's population— nearly 40 million 
Americans are chronically ill with a 
sleep disorder and an additional 20 to 30 
million experience intermittent sleep 
related problems. In addition to the 
tremendous personal pain and suffering 
they inflict, sleep disorders are a tre- 
mendous drain on the productivity and 
safety of our country: falling asleep at 
the wheel is one of the most costly and 
devastating problems on American 
highways; accidents in the workplace 
due to sleep deprivation are common- 
place and damaging to industry; the 
annual direct cost to society is over $15 
billion. 

But just as damaging is society's 
complete lack of awareness of sleep 
disorders and their consequences. In 
addition to finding no component of so- 
ciety adequately aware of sleep dis- 
orders and the facts of sleep depriva- 
tion, the National Commission found 
serious gaps in medical research and 
alarmingly few young investigators in 
the pipeline. It seems highly probable 
that this reservoir of ignorance is a 
major reason why 95 percent of all indi- 
viduals afflicted with a sleep disorder 
remain undiagnosed. 

The National Center for Sleep Dis- 
orders Research will address these 
problems by complementing the sleep- 
related research currently undertaken 
by the various NIH institutes and by 
encouraging and supporting appro- 
priate and supplemental and cross- 
cutting research. In addition, it will 
develop research programs and training 
initiatives in the field, provide a man- 
date for the health care community 
and will strive to educate the general 
public about sleep and sleep disorders 
through a nationwide information cam- 
paign. 

Mr. President. I would like to take 
this opportunity to thank Dr. William 
Dement, Chairman of the National 
Commission on Sleep Disorders Re- 


May28, 1993 

search, and Dr. James Walsh of the 
American Sleep Disorders Association 
for their diligent and untiring leader- 
ship as advocates for sleep disorders re- 
search. They have served their profes- 
sion with distinction. Furthermore, I 
wish to commend my colleagues, Sen- 
ators Kennedy, Simon, and Chafee for 
their cosponsorship of S. 104, my free- 
standing legislation establishing the 
National Center and support on this 
issue. I look forward to working with 
them and my colleagues in the Senate 
Appropriations Committee to ensure 
that there is adequate funding for sleep 
disease research at the National Insti- 
tutes of Health. 

Another important proposal that is 
included in this report is legislation 
authorizing the establishment of two 
infertility and three contraceptive re- 
search centers. I have worked for a 
number of years to promote the estab- 
lishment of these research centers be- 
cause I am concerned about the lack of 
research taking place in these areas. In 
fact, today only one pharmaceutical 
company is conducting research on 
contraceptives. 

In an age where the abortion debate 
has become so divisive, I believe it be- 
hooves us to put our efforts into con- 
traceptive research and to attack the 
problem of unwanted pregnancies by 
providing reliable birth control meth- 
ods. Certainly, this is not the key to 
ending the need for abortion, but I 
firmly believe it is a step in the right 
direction. 

Through the appropriations process, 
we have appropriated the funding nec- 
essary to get the five centers up and 
running, and I am pleased that now 
that these centers will be authorized 
we will be able to appropriate suffi- 
cient funding to assure these impor- 
tant research efforts can continue. 

I urge the adoption of this conference 
report. 

Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, 
it has been a long time coming, but I 
am pleased today that the Congress is 
finally passing S. 1 to reauthorize the 
National Institutes of Health. 

I have stated many times in this 
Chamber how much respect I have for 
the National Institutes of Health. NIH 
is a national treasure. The work of its 
scientists and the research that it sup- 
ports in universities form the corner- 
stone of our contributions to the reduc- 
tion of suffering and disease in Amer- 
ica and throughout the world. 

And as I have expressed before, I have 
enormous respect for the Director of 
NIH, Dr. Bernadine Healy. She has ex- 
hibited impressive leadership in bio- 
medical research, and served in her po- 
sition with distinction. Although I am 
pleased to finally see the NIH reauthor- 
ization bill approved, I regret that Dr. 
Healy will not be able to execute the 
programs she has long fought to create. 

I am also pleased that the bill con- 
tains provisions for a new study on the 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12079 


status of basic biomedical engineering 
research. I requested that such a study 
be included in the bill because of the 
fundamental importance of biomedical 
engineering in our basic science arse- 
nal. 

Biomedical engineering uses prin- 
ciples of science and engineering to 
solve problems in biology and medi- 
cine. It is a relatively new field and one 
that is highly innovative and rapidly 
growing. 

While we have a strong tradition of 
Government support for basic medical 
science research, bioengineering has 
not enjoyed comparable support. An 
NIH-sponsored study is necessary to 
determine the status of bioengineering 
research, levels of funding and support, 
and offer proposals to Congress for im- 
proving the present funding policies. 
The reauthorization of the NIH pro- 
vides an opportunity to ask NIH to 
conduct this vital study. 

In addition, I welcome many of the 
other provisions in this important 
piece of legislation. I have been a 
strong supporter of AIDS research and 
enhancing our commitment to find a 
cure for this dread disease. I believe it 
is important that we coordinate all our 
efforts in this area, so that the re- 
search can proceed efficiently and with 
dispatch. This bill includes some ex- 
pansion of authority to address the 
issue. 

This bill also expands our commit- 
ment to research on women's health. 

All the issues this reauthorization 
address are vital to the health of our 
country. Solid medical research is one 
of our Nation's most revered achieve- 
ments. We need to keep it that way. 
Mr. President, I am pleased that this 
bill will finally give the NIH the au- 
thority it needs to carry out its mis- 
sion. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, when S. 1 
was before the Senate in February. I 
noted both its significance and its im- 
portance: significance because the NIH 
is the core of the world's medical re- 
search infrastructure, and importance 
because this authorization moves for- 
ward major research programs address- 
ing critical medical challenges facing 
the United States today. 

Mr. President, I supported the Na- 
tional Institutes of Health reauthoriza- 
tion. It was — and is — a significant piece 
of legislation, and I looked forward to 
continuing my enthusiastic support 
when the conference report was re- 
turned to the Senate. Unfortunately, a 
single, tragic addition to what was oth- 
erwise an excellent bill caused me to 
seriously question my support of S. 1. 

Let me be clear. Overall, I believe 
that the conferees have done an excep- 
tional job in crafting a very difficult 
piece of legislation, and I want to rec- 
ognize Senator Kennedy, Senator 
Kassebaum, the other conferees, and 
their staffs, for their very fine work. 

The notable exception to which I 
refer is the codification of President 


Clinton's action to reverse the morato- 
rium on the use of fetal tissue from in- 
duced abortions. The area of fetal tis- 
sue transplantation into human recipi- 
ents has stimulated a long and difficult 
ethical debate. It has impeded valuable 
research from going forward. 

Regardless of whether a Senator is 
pro-life or pro-choice — and this Senator 
is strongly pro-life— the approach we 
adopted last year of creating fetal tis- 
sue banks had the potential of supply- 
ing the tissue needed for ongoing re- 
search purposes without using tissue 
obtained from a source which is ethi- 
cally troublesome to many Americans. 
I am terribly disappointed that the 
fetal tissue banks were not allowed to 
continue as envisioned by the previous 
administration, and I am deeply trou- 
bled about the course President Clin- 
ton is now charting. 

If this were the only provision con- 
tained in the NIH reauthorization, I 
would vote against this conference re- 
port. 

However, I have concluded that, as 
grievous as the lifting of the fetal tis- 
sue ban is, this one issue cannot any 
longer be allowed to stand in the way 
of the host of other worthwhile pro- 
grams and initiatives within the NIH 
reauthorization. These efforts are criti- 
cally important in addressing a variety 
of health issues in the United States. 

An important example in S. 1 is the 
provision authorizing research into 
breast cancer. Recent studies indicate 
that over 45.000 women will die from 
breast and cervical cancer this year. 
Overall, one woman in nine will suffer 
from breast cancer alone during her 
lifetime. Mr. President, medical re- 
search at the NIH is essential to ad- 
dressing this critical problem. 

Among the many authorizations con- 
tained in this bill are funds for con- 
tinuing breast cancer research, as well 
as authorizations for new and ongoing 
studies specifically focused on bringing 
equity to womens' health issues. Obvi- 
ously, these are research areas of criti- 
cal importance that both need and de- 
serve our support. 

Another of the very important ele- 
ments in this bill is the elevation of 
the AIDS research activities at NIH. 
Senator Kennedy and I authored the 
Senate language on this provision. The 
conference agreement will establish an 
office of AIDS research which will co- 
ordinate intra-agency AIDS research 
activities and develop a comprehensive 
research plan. Of note is a new emer- 
gency discretionary fund that will 
allow the Office of AIDS Research Di- 
rector to fund priority initiatives. 

There are many other examples of 
important program reauthorizations in 
this conference report, among them: 

Codifying important work of the Of- 
fice of Research on Minority Health; 

Providing important safeguards in 
the conduct of biomedical research 
through the establishment of the Office 
of Research Integrity; 



12080 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12081 


Establishing in law the Office of Al- 
ternative Medicine which will facili- 
tate the evaluation of alternative med- 
ical treatment modalities. This is an 
excellent idea. More and more Ameri- 
cans are successfully using alternative 
medicine. I hope that the Congress can 
also adopt the provision in my bill, S. 
784, the Dietary Supplement Health 
and Education Act of 1993, which will 
establish a new Office of Dietary Sup- 
plements at NIH. This office will fur- 
ther develop a research bank linking 
the role of diet and nutrition to good 
health. 

Conducting a study to determine the 
average amount of expenditures during 
the last 6 months of life. I suggested 
this provision because I believe the in- 
formation gained will be extremely 
valuable in our deliberations on health 
care reform. 

Designates the Senior Biomedical 
Research Service in honor of our late 
colleague and our good friend, Silvio 
Conte from Massachusetts. I do regret 
that we had to adopt language capping 
participation in the program at 500 per- 
sons. 

Authorizing $72 million for both on- 
going and additional, new research into 
prostate cancer; 

Providing $2.7 billion to further the 
important work at the National Cancer 
Institute; and 

Authorizing $325 million for breast 
cancer research, with $225 million allo- 
cated for basic research, and $100 mil- 
lion for clinical research. 

Mr. President, I do not support the 
bill's provision on fetal tissue. If I 
thought we could remove it without 
jeopardizing the many other research 
initiatives in the bill, I would be 
among the first to advocate that we do 
so. But, in my opinion, we cannot. 
When President Clinton issued his Ex- 
ecutive order, we have lost that par- 
ticular battle. But. I am prepared to 
move forward with this bill because I 
do not also want to lose the battle 
against cancer, AIDS, heart disease, 
blindness, and other afflictions that 
medical science and the NIH can help 
us to cure and to prevent. For these 
reasons, I will support the conference 
report on the NIH reauthorization bill. 

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, earlier 
this year, when the full Senate consid- 
ered the NIH reauthorization bill, I 
rose to express not only my apprecia- 
tion and enormous respect for the Na- 
tional Institutes of Health but also to 
express my desire that we would try to 
keep politics out of this process. The 
National Institutes of Health is recog- 
nized internationally, for its work in 
the area of various cancers, heart dis- 
ease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and a 
variety of rare and very deadly dis- 
eases. 

My colleagues are fully aware of my 
strong convictions — especially my con- 
cern that medical science not move 
ahead of ethical and moral consider- 


ations in research. I supported the bill 
before the Senate in February, because 
I support the Institutes, and because at 
that time. Congress was not injecting 
itself in the debate over the use of 
human fetuses in research. Unfortu- 
nately, the bill before us today is con- 
siderably different from that earlier 
version in this respect. I am greatly 
concerned by certain provisions in the 
bill. 

Let me state again for the record 
that I support the National Institutes 
of Health, but I believe it my job as a 
U.S. Senator to ask thoughtful ques- 
tions — questions I do not believe the 
President and his administration have 
adequately answered. 

During his first few days in office, 
the President exercised his Executive 
privilege to overturn several long-held 
protections for preborn life — one of 
which directly affects this legislation— 
the overturning of the moratorium on 
fetal tissue transplantation research. 

The President was within his rights 
to exercise that power— and while I did 
not agree with him, I understand his 
position. However, in the bill before us 
today. Congress is being asked not only 
to affirm that executive action, but to 
codify it in law. 

The issue of fetal tissue research is a 
complex one — and one which I believe 
all of us can support as a concept. The 
issue is not whether or not to support 
this type of research, because the NIH 
already supports this research, even 
with the moratorium in place, to the 
tune of $9 million. The issue is the 
source of the tissue. I support using 
fetal tissue from sources such as spon- 
taneous abortions, miscarriages, and 
stillbirths. I do not support using tis- 
sue from aborted fetuses. 

I do not intend to take up the time of 
this body expounding all the reasons 
for this opposition — and there are 
many— rather I would like us to think 
for a moment about the consequences 
of pursuing this type of research in a 
reckless and unabandoned way. 

Just think a moment, if medical re- 
search becomes dependent on wide- 
spread abortion, a vested interest 
would clearly be created in a substan- 
tial, uninterrupted flow of fetal re- 
mains. Medical science would be de- 
pendent on continued legal abortion— 
on demand. 

A second question I think we need to 
ask is: By what right is this tissue ob- 
tained? Certainly, the remains of a 
fetus in an elective abortion are not 
donated in any traditional sense of the 
word. The fetus can give no consent. It 
is instead, provided by the very people 
who ended a life. Can the person who 
ended a life be morally permitted to 
determine the use of the organs of that 
life? 

Third, is it really possible to separate 
neatly the practice of abortion from its 
use in biomedical research? Are re- 
searchers merely using the results of 


abortion, or are they dictating its prac- 
tice? Janice G. Raymond, professor of 
Women's Studies and Medical Ethics at 
the University of Massachusetts has 
testified that doctors are already alter- 
ing the methods of abortion in order to 
get the tissue they desire. "Doctors 
who are eager to get good tissue sam- 
ples," she says, "must put women at 
additional risk of complication by al- 
tering the methods for performing 
abortions and by extending the time it 
takes to perform a conventional abor- 
tion procedure." This legislation pro- 
hibits the altering of the abortion pro- 
cedure in order to obtain viable tissue, 
but how would this prohibition pos- 
sibly be enforced? Such a prohibition 
amounts to lip service, at best. 

Finally, we must ask, what future 
will we find if tissue transplants de- 
pendent on elective abortion are suc- 
cessful? If all the victims of diabetes, 
Parkinson's. Alzheimer's disease, and 
neurological trauma were to be treated 
with human fetal tissue as many as 20 
million fetuses would have to be pro- 
cured to supply that need. 

So it seems to me, on this question 
alone, we need to direct our attention 
toward alternatives — ways to generate 
fetal tissue without elective abortion — 
either by looking at cell cultures or 
the use of animal tissue. Some alter- 
native must be found to induced abor- 
tion if demand is to be met. and an eth- 
ical nightmare avoided. 

Does this legislation address alter- 
natives to human fetal tissue. No it 
does not. In fact, this bill contains 
more protection for research involving 
animal subjects than it does pre-born 
children. In fact, this bill appears to 
send a signal that in the future we will 
rely more on fetal tissue than animal. 

Section 205 of the legislation is enti- 
tled "Plan for Use of Animals in Re- 
search." This section requires the Di- 
rector of the National Institutes of 
Health to conduct or support research 
into — 

First, methods of biomedical re- 
search and experimentation that do 
not require the use of animals; 

Second, methods of such research and 
experimentation that reduce the num- 
ber of animals used in such research; 
and 

Third, methods of such research and 
experimentation that produce less pain 
and distress in such animals. 

Mr. President, I do not oppose this 
section per se. but I think it ironically 
demonstrates what I consider to be 
misplaced priorities. We seek to dis- 
courage the use of animals in research, 
requiring the Director of NIH to study 
alternatives, and we express a desire 
that research involving animals be de- 
signed to assure "less pain and dis- 
tress." Do any of these protections 
apply with respect to fetal tissue ex- 
perimentation? Do we in this legisla- 
tion seek to discourage the use of 
aborted human fetuses in experimen- 


tation" Are we concerned about the 
pain and distress more mature fetuses 
who are aborted feel? Are we redirect- 
ing our attention toward alternatives 
to human fetal tissue — such as animal 
models? The answer to each of these 
questions is no. We are in this legisla- 
tion, relying almost exclusively on 
human fetuses as the source of tissue 
for human transplantation. 

What will be the status of the so- 
called fetal tissue bank under an ad- 
ministration that supports this type of 
policy. Can we expect a real effort will 
be put into the banks by the NIH when 
Congress is clearly sending a message 
to the contrary? These are very impor- 
tant questions, and ones which cause 
me to pause. 

Mr. President, I could go on— discuss- 
ing many of the other issues which are 
raised by pursuing this line of re- 
search — but I shall not. Let me con- 
clude with a quote from Stephen Post 
who has stated, "Ultimately, it is the 
specter of a society whose medical in- 
stitutions are inextricably bound up 
with elective abortions and whose peo- 
ple come to believe that for their own 
health they have every right to feed off 
the unborn— that gives piause." 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
question is on agreeing to the con- 
ference report. 

The conference report was agreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I 
move to reconsider the vote. 

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that mo- 
tion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 


THE CALENDAR 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed, en bloc, to the immediate con- 
sideration of Calendar Nos. 68 and 71; 
that the bills be deemed read three 
times, passed, and the motion to recon- 
sider the passage of these measures 
laid upon the table, en bloc; further, 
that the consideration of these items 
appear individually in the Record and 
any statements relative to these cal- 
endar items appear at the appropriate 
place in the Record. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 


AMERICAN FOLKLIFE CENTER 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT 

The bill (S. 685) to authorize appro- 
priations for the American Folklife 
Center for fiscal years 1994, 1995. 1996. 
and 1997 was considered, ordered to be 
engrossed for a third reading, read the 
third time and passed; as follows: 
S. 685 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House 
of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled. 


SECTION I. AMERICAN FOLKUFE CENTER. 

Section 8 of the American Folklife Preser- 
vation Act (20 U.S.C. 2107) is amended— 

(1) by striking ••1992, and" and inserting 
••1992,"; and 

(2) by inserting •, $1,120,000 for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1994. $1,197,936 for 
the fiscal year ending September 30. 1995. 
$1,267,272 for the fiscal year ending Septem- 
ber 30. 19%. and $1,341,158 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 199V after •1993". 


NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL 
HISTORY AUTHORIZATION 

The bill (S. 779) to continue the au- 
thorization of appropriations for the 
East Court of the National Museum of 
Natural History, and for other purposes 
was considered, ordered to be engrossed 
for an third reading, read the third 
time, and passed; as follows: 

S.779 
Be It enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, 

SECnON 1. NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL 
HISTORY. 

(a) In General— Section 2 of the Act enti- 
tled 'An Act to authorize the Board of Re- 
gents of the Smithsonian Institution to plan, 
design, construct, and equip space in the 
East Court of the National Mufeum of Natu- 
ral History building, and for other pur- 
poses^'. approved October 24. 1990 (20 U.S.C. 50 
note), is amended by inserting ••and succeed- 
ing fiscal years" after ••199r^. 

(b) Effective Date.— The amendment 
made by subsection (a) shall take effect as of 
October 24, 1990. 


NATIONAL COOPERATION PRODUC- 
TION AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consider- 
ation of Calendar No. 74, H.R. 1313. the 
National Cooperative Production 
Amendments of 1993; that the bill be 
deemed read three times, passed, and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table; that statements by Senators 
Leahy and Biden relative to the bill 
appear in the Record at the appro- 
priate place. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 

So the bill (H.R. 1313) was deemed 
read the third time and passed. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I 
am pleased to be joined by Senators 
Biden and Thurmond in urging the pas- 
sage of the National Cooperative Pro- 
duction Amendments of 1993. This bill 
is the companion to S. 574 which Sen- 
ator Biden, Senator Thurmond, and I 
introduced earlier this Congress. Simi- 
lar to S. 1006 of the 101st Congress and 
S. 479 in the 102d Congress, this legisla- 
tion will strengthen the competitive- 
ness, technological leadership, and eco- 
nomic growth of the United States by 
extending the National Cooperative Re- 
search Act of 1984 to allow joint pro- 
duction ventures, as well as joint re- 
search and development ventures. 


As American firms come under in- 
creased pressure from fast-paced tech- 
nological innovation and development 
abroad, it is more important than ever 
to make sure that our companies do 
not function at a disadvantage. The 
National Cooperative Production 
Amendments will begin to level the 
international playing field, without 
risking harm to the competitive mar- 
ketplace or the integrity of our anti- 
trust laws, 

American scientists and engineers 
are the world's best innovators. We 
continue to make scientific break- 
throughs and invent new and improved 
products. But good ideas and break- 
through inventions alone will not spell 
America's success in global markets. 
World technological leadership depends 
on our ability to convert research and 
development advances into commercial 
production at a rapid pace. This is 
often « costly and risky endeavor. 

In 1984, Congress passed the National 
Cooperative Research Act which ad- 
dressed the significant financial com- 
mitment involved in high technology 
innovation. That act encouraged Amer- 
ican firms to join forces — to share the 
cost and risk of research and develop- 
ment projects — by clarifying antitrust 
law regarding combined research ven- 
tures. Specifically, the 1984 act applied 
the rule-of-reason standard to joint re- 
search and development ventures so 
that, if legal action were taken against 
a venture, a court could consider the 
competitive benefits of the venture. It 
also limited antitrust recovery against 
joint R&D ventures to single damages, 
if the ventures follow the act's notifi- 
cation procedure. 

The National Cooperative Research 
Act has been a success. Since its enact- 
ment, companies have established over 
300 joint research ventures to develop 
everything from chipmaking and 
steelmaking processes to superconduc- 
tors. Many argue that the 1984 act was 
critical to the formation of Sematech. 
the industry-government research con- 
sortium whose mission is to restore the 
U.S. world leadership in semiconductor 
manufacturing technology. 

With its success, however, the 1984 
act has its limitations. The act does 
npt address the need for joint produc- 
tion ventures and it is precisely in the 
area of manufacturing that the United 
States faces its most serious competi- 
tive challenges. We must recognize the 
significance of this country's manufac- 
turing capability by giving joint pro- 
duction ventures the same treatment 
as joint research and development ven- 
tures under the National Cooperative 
Research Act. 

While this legislation will benefit 
American businesses across the board, 
it will have perhaps the greatest im- 
pact on our electronics industry — an 
industry which employs 2.6 million 
Americans and which represents a $750 
billion global market. Over the past 


12082 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


decade, we have witnessed the erosion 
of America's leadership in high tech- 
nology electronics. 

As chairman of the Judiciary Com- 
mittee's Subcommittee on Technology 
and the Law. I am particularly con- 
cerned about the U.S. semiconductor 
industry. Considered the crude oil of 
our electronics chain, semiconductor 
chips are at the heart of the tech- 
nology revolution. These tiny silicon 
wafers are critical to this Nation's eco- 
nomic g/owth and national security. 
Nearly every domestic industry de- 
pends, directly or indirectly, on the 
products of the semiconductor indus- 
try. Semiconductor chips drive every- 
thing from wristwatches, to medical di- 
agnostic equipment, to desk-top com- 
puters, to fighter jets. 

Do American companies understand 
the significance of their declining 
share of the global market in several 
products. In order to regain their com- 
petitive edge, are they willing to alter 
the way they do business? After many 
discussions with industry representa- 
tives, I can say, emphatically. "Yes." I 
think the late Bob Noyce, inventor of 
the integrated circuit and former presi- 
dent of Sematech, said it best when he 
told my subcommittee that companies 
simply cannot afford to go it alone 
anymore. "Cooperation," Bob said, "is 
not only important for survival today, 
it's essential." 

Some critics of this legislation claim 
that cooperation means mergers and 
acquisitions — that it means a boost for 
the big guy at the expense of our small- 
er entrepreneurs. This is not the case 
at all. As a matter of fact, in testi- 
mony before the Antitrust Subcommit- 
tee, Prof. David Teece of the Berkeley 
University School of Business empha- 
sized that this legislation would take 
away the incentives for mergers and 
acquisitions. It would allow small- to 
middle-sized firms to maintain their 
independence and yet join with other 
companies for R&D and production 
when a project is too big or too costly 
or too risky to pursue alone. This Na- 
tion's industrial strength depends on 
the inventive dynamism located in our 
small enterprises. The National Coop- 
erative Production Amendments of 1993 
will guarantee diversity and economic 
prosperity for all American companies. 

Mr. President, we must recognize 
that our foreign competitors do not 
labor under the same antitrust restric- 
tions that confront American busi- 
nesses. Their R&D and manufacturing 
muscle is unlimited, and their R&D 
and manufacturing ventures are 
formed on strictly pragmatic grounds: 
What is needed and what will work. As 
a result, they move ahead while the 
United States falls behind. 

I do not believe that joint production 
ventures are a panacea for this Na- 
tion's competitiveness ills. No one 
blames our decline in international 
high technology markets solely on 


antitrust barriers to cooperation. But 
joint research, development and pro- 
duction ventures are an important part 
of our long-term, comprehensive indus- 
trial strategy. By passing the National 
Cooperative Production Amendments 
of 1993. Congress can remove a signifi- 
cant impediment to the creation of 
joint production ventures. 

Let me emphasize that passage of 
this bill will not weaken our antitrust 
laws. Let me also point out Mr. Presi- 
dent, that S. 574 and H.R. 1313 are the 
product of long, lively, careful, and 
thoughtful negotiations with Chairman 
Brooks. Congressmen Fish and Ed- 
w..\RDS and others on the House Judici- 
ary Committee. Although the drafting 
may vary, like its predecessors, this 
bill extends rather than supplants the 
1984 R&D act. It retains the 1984 act's 
protections against antitrust viola- 
tions and the 1984 act's notice provi- 
sions. It underscores the 1984 act's safe- 
guards against price-fixing and market 
allocation arrangements. 

The bill includes language limiting 
its protections to joint ventures which 
locate their principal production facili- 
ties in the United Stjites and whose 
parties are from countries whose law 
accords antitrust treatment to U.S. 
joint venturers no less favorable than 
the treatment domestic entitles re- 
ceive. 

I wish to salute Senator Thurmond, 
Senator BiDEN. and Chairman Brooks 
and Representatives Fish and Edwards 
for their perseverance and ingenuity in 
reaching the compromise bill that the 
Senate will pass today. The result of 
all this hard work is a bill that will 
protect and promote American jobs but 
at the same time acknowledge the ben- 
eficial impact that foreign participa- 
tion can have on production joint ven- 
tures. I also wish to thank Senator 
Metzenbaum for his cooperation in the 
passage of this bill. 

I also wish to thank the Senate staff 
for their persistent, patient, and cre- 
ative work on this legislation. In par- 
ticular, I would like to thank Ann Har- 
kins and Tris Coffin of the Technology 
Subcommittee; Sean Moylan, counsel 
to Senator BiDEN; Keith Seat, counsel 
to Senator Thurmond; Mindy Hatton, 
counsel to Senator Metzenbaum and 
John Bliss, counsel to Senator Brown. 
I would also like to thank several 
former staff members whose work on 
this bill over the years has been par- 
ticularly important to its passage 
today— Patricia Vaughan, formerly 
antitrust counsel to Senator Thur- 
mond, Scott Schell, formerly special 
counsel to Senator BiDEN, and Craig 
Schiffries and Jill Friedman, formerly 
of my staff. 

Mr. President, it is time to level the 
playing field in the international mar- 
ketplace. I urge my colleagues to sup- 
port this proposal and ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate pass H.R. 1313. 
I ask unanimous consent that the full 


text of my remarks be printed in the 
Record. The Judiciary Committee will 
file its report to S. 574. the companion 
bill to H.R. 1313 next week. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I 
am pleased to join witli Senator Leahy 
and Senator Thurmond in urging my 
colleagues to pass the National Cooper- 
ative Production Amendments of 1993. 
H.R. 1313. 

The goal of this legislation is a sim- 
ple one: to create jobs for American 
workers by promoting the competitive- 
ness of those companies doing business 
in the United States. Achieving this 
goal in a time of global markets and 
increased competition from abroad will 
not be easy. But we can begin by help- 
ing to ensure that companies doing 
business in the United States can work 
together where it is appropriate. 

The National Cooperative Production 
Amendments of 1993 eliminates the 
threat of treble damages for firms that 
enter into joint ventures that locate 
their principal production facilities in 
the United States. By waiving treble 
damages, this legislation encourages 
companies to join together in manufac- 
turing ventures; allows companies to 
share the significant investment bur- 
dens required to compete successfully 
in today's global markets; attracts 
high-technology production to the 
United States and. most importantly, 
increases the number of highly skilled 
jobs to be filled by American workers. 

I want to emphasize that in drafting 
. this legislation, we crafted a very nar- 
row exception to the antitrust laws. 
Antitrust laws play an important role 
in protecting American consumers 
from the dangers of monopolies — in- 
creased prices and reduced choices. 
Changes in the antitrust laws have 
been made rarely, and only for convpel- 
ling reasons. The present state of the 
American economy is the most compel- 
ling reason to make this change. 

These amendments to the antitrust 
laws will work for the American 
consumer and worker. The potential 
for economic growth is paralleled only 
by the potential for the development of 
new products. This legislation pro- 
motes ventures among small and large 
businesses to produce innovative, new 
technologies. Since small business pro- 
vides most of the employment opportu- 
nities in the United States, legislation 
that encourages small businesses to 
pool resources with other small busi- 
nesses, or even larger corporations, 
will lead to increased employment for 
Americans. 

I share President Clinton's concern 
about the need to expand the job base. 
I continue to believe that in order fort 
the American economy to recover, we 
have to see help wanted signs hanging 
in the windows of American businesses. 
I believe this legislation will contrib- 
ute to this effort by encouraging joint 
ventures to locate in the United 
States. I am pleased with the broad bi- 


^ 


May 28, 1993 

partisan support for the bill and urge 
my colleagues to enact this bill. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12083 


UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that if the Senate 
receives from the House a revenue 
measure that deals solely with the re- 
peal of the luxury tax on boats, jew- 
elry, furs, and planes, and a modifica- 
tion to the luxury tax on automobiles 
with respect to the cost of accessories 
for the disabled with a revenue offset 
that repeals the diesel tax exemption 
on recreational boats and expands the 
45-day-interest rule for certain refunds, 
that the bill, upon receipt, be placed on 
the calendar; that the majority leader, 
after consultation with the Republican 
leader, may turn to its consideration 
at any time; that no amendments or 
motions be in order to the bill; that 
there be a time limitation for debate 
on passage of the bill of 1 hour equally 
divided in the usual form; that no 
points of order lie against the bill; and 
that when all time is used or yielded 
back, the Senate, without any inter- 
vening action or debate, vote on final 
passage of the bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 

The text of the agreement follows: 

Ordered, That at 2:30 p.m. on Monday. June 
7. 1993. the Senate resume consideration of S. 
3. the Congressional Spending Limit and 
Election Reform Act. and the Senator from 
Florida (Mr. Graham) be recognized to offer 
two amendments: (1) relating to broadcast 
discount for state and local candidates, and 
(2) relating to the FEC making grants to 
states to fund preparation and mailing of 
voter information pamphlets. 

Ordered further. That at 9:00 a.m. on Tues- 
day. June 8. 1993. the Senate resume consid- 
eration of S. 3 and that no vote occur rel- 
ative to any amendment pending prior to 9:30 
a.m. on Tuesday. June 8. 1993. 

Ordered further. That at 9:30 a.m. on Tues- 
day, June 8. 1993, the Senate proceed to vote 
on. or in relation to. the two Graham amend- 
ments. 

Ordered, That if the Senate receives from 
the House a revenue measure that deals 
soley with the repeal of the luxury tax on 
boats, jewelry, furs, and planes, and a modi- 
fication to the luxury tax on automobiles 
with respect to the cost of accessories for the 
disabled with a revenue offset that repeals 
the diesel tax exemption on recreational 
boats and expands the 45 day interest rule for 
certain refunds, the bill, upon receipt, be 
placed on the Calendar. 

Ordered further. That the Majority Leader, 
after consultation with the Republican Lead- 
er, may turn to its consideration at any 
time; that no amendments or motions be in 
order to the bill; and that there be a time 
limitation for debate on passage of the bill of 
1 hour, to be equally divided in the usual 
form. 

Ordered further. That no points of order lie 
against the bill, and that when all time is 
used or yielded back, the Senate, without 
any intervening action or debate, vote on 
final passage of the bill. 

Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator from Rhode Island. "^ 


Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I would 
like to extend my appreciation to the 
distinguished majority leader for his 
work in connection with this unani- 
mous-consent request which we have 
just agreed to. 

This is something that is extremely 
important to my State. Wit|i his en- 
thusiastic guidance and support, I have 
canvassed every single Member on the 
Republican side in connection with 
this, and I thank my colleagues for not 
objecting to this request. 

Again, I extend my appreciation to 
the majority leader, who is deeply in- 
terested in this matter himself because 
of the boat-building industry that he 
has in Maine. 

This tax that was passed several 
years ago has been a total disaster for 
the boat-building industry. It is one of 
those cases where they went out to get 
the millionaires, to get the rich, and it 
rebounded. They did not get the rich. 
All they did was get the boatbuilders, 
the people who manufacture the fiber- 
glass, build the winches, sew the sails, 
who make the cords and rigging. It has 
been devastating to the boat-building 
industry in my State and across the 
Nation. 

I am delighted that we have gotten 
this far. We are not home free yet; ob- 
viously the measure has to originate in 
the House and come over. But I do hope 
we are all successful in achieving that, 
especially the majority leader, who has 
been so helpful. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President. I 
thank my colleagues and friend from 
Rhode Island for his remarks. I think it 
is important that I make a brief state- 
ment now to put in perspective the 
agreement which we have just ob- 
tained. 

First, let me say the agreement was 
obtained through the hai-d work of Sen- 
ator CHAFEE, Senator Breaux of Lou- 
isiana, who has been a leader in this ef- 
fort, and myself. 

The significance of this action lies in 
the following act: Under the Constitu- 
tion, tax and revenue bills cannot 
originate in the Senate. They must 
originate in the House of Representa- 
tives. Were the Senate to attempt to 
initiate a tax or revenue bill, it would 
be of no legal effect because by long-es- 
tablished custom, precedent, and tradi- 
tion, the House, jealously guarding its 
constitutional prerogative to initiate 
tax legislation, will not consider tax 
legislation which the Senate origi- 
nated. 

So if the Senate tries to pass a tax 
bill on its own, it has no legal effect; it 
cannot be done. The only way that the 
Senate can pass a tax bill with legal ef- 
fect and consequence is to wait until 
the House of Representatives takes up 
and passes a tax bill, and sends it to 
the Senate for consideration. That does 
not happen very often. 

For obvious reasons, tax measures 
are usually of significance, and the 


House usually deals with them in 
measures which involve many different 
provisions. 

Under the rules of the Senate, once 
any bill is before the Senate, any Sen- 
ator can offer any amendment he or 
she wants. And so, by long practice, 
whenever a House-passed tax bill comes 
before the Senate, Senators jealously 
guard their prerogative to be able to 
offer amendments to that tax bill. 

Again, that is for obvious reasons. 
The luxury tax repeal on boats is an 
important matter to Senator Chafee, 
Senator Breaux. and me. We have 
spent many hours working to get this 
agreement. But it obviously does not 
have the same relevance to a Senator 
from a State which has no boat-build- 
ing industry. On the other hand, a Sen- 
ator from that State may have inter- 
ests particular to his State that are of 
no relevance to the States of Rhode Is- 
land, Maine, and Louisiana. So it is un- 
derstandable and appropriate that Sen- 
ators hold onto their right to offer 
amendments to tax bills when they 
come before the Senate. It is under- 
standable that the House rarely passes 
tax bills and sends them to the Senate. 

These factors have combined to make 
it very difficult for us to gain repeal of 
the luxury tax on boats, jewelry, furs, 
planes, and some cars. This was passed 
as part of the budget summit agree- 
ment of 1990, and it has clearly not had 
the intended effect. Indeed, it has had a 
reverse and an adverse effect. So we 
have been trying to repeal this tax for 
about 2 years. 

Last year, on two different occasions, 
the House and Senate passed com- 
prehensive tax legislation which in- 
cluded this luxury tax repeal. Both 
times the bills were vetoed by the 
President, not because of the luxury 
tax repeal but because of other provi- 
sions in the bill. 

So this year we have started out 
early, and we are pursuing two parallel 
approaches. First, the luxury tax re- 
peal is included in the budget bill, 
which passed the House last night and 
which will be now coming to the Sen- 
ate for action in the next few weeks. 
We on the Democratic side are going to 
try very hard to pass that bill. There is 
objection to it by our Republican col- 
leagues, so that presents a difficult sit- 
uation for someone like Senator 
Chafee, a situation which we com- 
monly face in the Senate where a bill 
has some things you like i^ it and 
other things you do not like "and you 
have to make a judgment. 

It is my strong hope and my belief 
that we are going to pass that budget, 
and included in that budget will be the 
luxury tax repeal. But in case we can- 
not, for reasons which have nothing to 
do with the luxury tax repeal, then we 
are trying to pursue this alternate ap- 
proach, and that is now, having gotten 
this agreement from the Senate, to say 
to the House, if you will now take up 


12084 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12085 


and pass a luxury tax repeal separately 
and send It to the Senate, we promise 
you we will not try to amend it. 

Until now. the House has been reluc- 
tant to pass a separate bill for the ob- 
vious reason, accurately stated, that if 
they send it over here, there are going 
to be a lot of amendments attached to 
it that have nothing to do with this 
subject. 

The significance of this agreement 
that we have just obtained— and it has 
taken a long time to do it. Senator 
Ch.\fee. Senator Breaux, and I have 
worked for a long time to get this 
agreement — is simply that if the Presi- 
dents budget does not pass and the 
luxury tax repeal included in that 
budget, therefore, does not pass, then 
we will request of the House that they 
act on this separate track. 

There is no guarantee they will do it. 
Senator Chafee and I are under no illu- 
sions in that regard. We have no prior 
agreement. But we do know that ear- 
lier, when they were asked to do it, the 
answer was there is no point in doing it 
because when it gets to the Senate 
there will be a lot of amendments to it. 
Now, at the very least, we can meet 
that argument and we can make that 
request. 

I wish to say to my friend Senator 
Chafee and to Senator Breaux. who is 
not present, thank you for the very 
hard work they did on this. This by it- 
self does not guarantee repeal, but it is 
another step in the long road to get- 
ting that repeal. And I repeat my de- 
termination as a Senator from Maine 
and as majority leader we are going to 
get that luxury tax repealed. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish 
to thank the distinguished majority 
leader for his kind comments. I also 
wish to say that Senators Pell and 
Cohen are interested in this legisla- 
tion. I have spoken to both of them. 
They did ask if I would mention their 
concern likewise. 

But as the majority leader has point- 
ed out. this has been a long journey. 
When we had it repealed, we had it re- 
pealed going back to January 1. 1992. 
The boat selling season is hard upon us 
now. The boat shows have gone by. but 
now the boat selling season is right 
with us, in June. So I certainly hope 
that this journey we have been in- 
volved in, principally the three of us, 
that is. Senator Breaux, and the dis- 
tinguished majority leader, and myself, 
all of us being on the Finance Commit- 
tee, will soon end. 

What did Winston Churchill say? "We 
are not at the beginning of the end but 
we are at the end of the beginning." We 
have a few more rounds to go. Our 
stamina is undaunted, and we are going 
to need it, I am afraid. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, if I 
might just say, it is in the budget. I do 
not know of any opposition in the Fi- 
nance Committee to its staying in 
here. Senator Moynihan, the chairman. 


is committed to supporting it. He and I 
both spoke with President Clinton and 
Secretary of the Treasury Bentsen. 
Both stated they had no opposition to 
its being in there. So we are going to 
work very hard to get it done there. 
That is going to be in the next few 
weeks. If we cannot, we well then try 
to proceed through the next process. 


MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President. I now 
ask unanimous consent that there be a 
period for morning business, in which 
Senators are able to speak. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does any 
Senator seek recognition? 

Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 
Lieberman). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin]. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank 
the majority leader for his indulgence 
and for giving me a few minutes here 
before he adjourns the Senate for the 
Memorial Day recess. 


BUDGET RECONCILIATION 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was 
listening this morning to the com- 
ments made by the disinguished mi- 
nority leader and others regarding the 
reconciliation bill that was passed last 
night by the House of Representatives. 
I wanted to respond to some of the 
statements, I think erroneous state- 
ments, and some of the misperceptions 
about the tax portion of the bill that 
was passed by the House of Representa- 
tives last night. 

First of all, Mr. President, I am very 
happy that the House passed the rec- 
onciliation bill because it sets this 
country on the right course. It provides 
for almost $500 billion in deficit reduc- 
tion, which we desperately need after 
12 years of a credit card spending spree, 
much of it wasted on excessive mili- 
tary spending and high interest rates 
on the burgeoning deficit. 

Mr. President, while the Btu tax has 
received a large share of the debate, we 
should remember that the tax provi- 
sions which only affect those with in- 
comes of over $115,000 will raise twice 
as much money as the Btu tax does. 

So I was listening to the minority 
leader earlier today speak about this 
House bill as a big, big, big tax bill. He 
kept repeating it was a big, big, big tax 
bill. 

Let us look at the major tax provi- 
sions and see who is paying this big, 
big, big tax bill. I would say at the out- 
set I would agree with the distin- 
guished minority leader that it is a big, 
big, big tax bill, but most of it is placed 
on those with big, big, big incomes. 
There is a big, big, big tax bill to make 
up for the big, big, big tax cuts for the 
wealthy that took place under Ronald 
Reagan. 


So let us look at the tax portion of 
the bill. Those individuals making over 
$115,000 a year, and those who are joint 
filers making over $140,000 a year will 
pay a higher. 36 percent rate. It goes 
from 31 percent to 36 percent. Before 
1981. before the big Reagan tax breaks 
for the wealthy, those rates went up to 
70 percent. So the rates are only going 
halfway back to where we were prior to 
1981. 

Those making over $250,000 a year 
will pay a 10-percent surtax on their in- 
come taxes. Some companies pay their 
executives over $1 million a year in sal- 
aries—you see some of these big cor- 
porate executives getting $5 million. 
$20 million a year. I wonder how many 
hard-working Americans know that the 
companies can deduct that from their 
income taxes if they want to pay them 
$10 or $15 million a year. This bill says 
if a company wants to pay an executive 
over $1 million a year, they usually 
will not be able to deduct that from 
their taxes any longer. 

I say it is about time we do that. 

These provisions; raising the rate to 
36 percent on those making more than 
$115,000 a year. 10 percent surtax on 
those making over $250,000 a year, and 
closing the loophole so that these high- 
ly paid executives, the companies can- 
not deduct that from their income 
taxes. These provisions will raise over 
$115 billion to help reduce the deficit. 

Second, requiring those with salaries 
of more than $135,000 a year to pay 
their Medicare payroll tax on their 
whole salary, rather than just on the 
first $135,000. pay on all of their income 
like most Americans do. Most hard- 
working Americans pay all year long 
on every dollar they earn to pay for the 
Medicare payroll tax. Now. if you make 
$500,000 a year, you only pay on 
$135,000. 

We closed that loophole. That raises 
another $29 billion to reduce the defi- 
cit. 

Corporations earning over $10 million 
a year will have their rates go up by 1 
percent, from 34 to 35 percent. That 
raises another $16 million a year. That 
is not mom and pop corporations. 
These are corporations that earn over 
$10 million a year. So their rates go up 
1 percent, as 1 said. That raises $16 bil- 
lion. 

If we have the Btu tax, that will raise 
less than half of the above provisions. 
$72 billion. These figures are what will 
be raised over 5 years. So all of this 
talk about this Btu tax that I hear 
from the other side of the aisle, and we 
heard so much about from the other 
body last night and from the minority 
leader this morning, the Btu tax. that 
is less than half of the tax provisions 
that we raise from provisions only paid 
by upper-income and wealthy people in 
this country. 

So it occurs to me. Mr. President, 
that the overemphasis on Btu tax. as 
an issue, is simply a stalking horse for 


the real agenda of some of my friends 
on the Republican side of the aisle. And 
their real agenda is to keep the taxes 
down on the wealthiest in our country. 
They want to continue what Ronald 
Reagan did in 1981. Those making big 
bucks are not paying their fair share. 
Hard-working Americans keep paying 
the taxes. 

So whenever I hear all of this talk 
about the Btu tax, how tough it is — and 
it is tough, but it is only half of what 
we raise from upper income — I am con- 
vinced the talk is. in part, a stalking 
horse for the real agenda. And the real 
agenda of the minority leader and the 
Republicans is to keep the taxes down 
on the wealthiest in our country. 

I know many do not like the Btu tax. 
I do not much like it myself, quite 
frankly. I cannot think of anybody 
that would like a Btu tax. It will cause 
some real problems in specific areas. 

I believe that some changes will be 
made in this body to deal with those 
problems with the Btu tax. But I want 
to remind my fellow Senators, and I 
think the rest of the country, that this 
is almost like deja vu all over again. 

In 1977, President Carter sent an en- 
ergy bill to the Congress. This Senator 
happened to be in the other body at the 
time, the House of Representatives. I 
remember that I read that very care- 
fully. I thought it was a good energy 
bill. We worked on it in the House; it 
passed the House virtually intact, and 
it came to the Senate, and that was the 
end of it — it got killed. 

I think what happened at that time 
is that the forces that arrayed them- 
selves against the energy bill at that 
time really stuck their heads in the 
sand. If we had passed that energy bill, 
we would not be importing as much oil 
as we are this year. About half of the 
oil we use in this country is imported. 
Over $50 billion a year are going out of 
this country to places like Saudi Ara- 
bia and Kuwait, and places like that, to 
buy petroleum and petroleum products. 
If we passed that energy bill then, we 
would have more conservation; we 
would have more alternative energy, 
such as solar, wind, geothermal, and 
others, today. We would be importing a 
lot less oil, and using more natural gas 
then we are, which is domestically pro- 
duced. 

But. no. we stuck our heads in the 
sand in 1977. Look what has happened 
today. We are using more energy than 
ever before. All that money is still 
going out of this country every year; 
$50 billion are leaving this country to 
pay for imported oil. I say that it is 
time that we quit sticking our heads in 
the sand. This Btu tax is designed to do 
three things: First, start to cut down 
on imported oil. 

Second, to start producing more of 
our energy in this country using natu- 
ral gas. conservation, and all the forms 
of energy. 

Third, to reduce the deficit. 


These are all objectives which I sup- 
port. 

So I hope we will not repeat what we 
did in 1977 and stick our heads in the 
sand again and say that, no, we can 
continue to use energy like it is just 
water. I think it is time we recognize 
that we have to Cut down on our prof- 
ligate use of imported oil in this coun- 
try. 

We have to take a look at the whole 
tax package and not just focus on the 
Btu tax. A family making $400,000 a 
year will pay around $1,100 more per 
month in taxes. The average family 
with a $40.000-a-year income will pay 
around $20 a month more in taxes. 

Some have said that this bill is going 
to hurt the mom and pop small busi- 
nesses because of the 36-percent tax 
rate — mom and pop small businesses, 
such as sole proprietorships. Well, the 
fact is that the rate only applies if that 
mom and pop as a family, makes more 
than $140,000 a year. 

Mr. President. I must tell you that 
the mom and pop businesses that dot 
the main streets of our small towns 
and communities in Iowa are not mak- 
ing $140,000 a year. They are lucky if 


are hurt more by the Btu tax including 
agriculture. These adjustments have to 
be made, as we always make them. But 
if we take decisive action, low interest 
rates will more than offset the costs 
that many people and businesses will 
bear. 

Mr. President, I represent a farm 
State. I am proud to represent that 
State, and I am proud of our farmers. 
There has been a lot of talk that this 
Btu tax is really going to hurt farmers. 
Well, as originally desigrned, it would 
have done so. 

One of the key parts of the plan was 
that petroleum products were taxed at 
a higher rate, say, than natural gas 
which is produced more in this coun- 
try. The tax per million Btu's on petro- 
leum products was about 60 cents per 
million Btu's. On other forms of en- 
ergy, like natural gas, it was about 26 
cents per million Btus. 

The House of Representatives cut 
that increase on petroleum products 
for farmers. So rather than being taxed 
at 60 cents per million Btu's farmers 
are only taxed at a 26 cents per million 
Btu tax rate for their farm fuel. And, I 
believe that there will be additional 


they make $30,000 a year. They are i^T^hanges that will benefit agriculture in 
those stores from early morning until 
late at night, working hard, serving 
the people. They are not making 
$140,000 a year. Anybody that says in- 
creasing the tax rate is going to hurt 
most small business owners obviously 
has not read the bill or, again, they are 
trying to put up a smoke screen for an- 
other agenda, the agenda of keeping 
taxes as low as possible on the wealthi- 
est in our country. 

Mr. President, the reconciliation bill 
is about remedying what some called 
the riverboat gamble taken in 1981. I 
did not call it that. Senator Harold 
Baker. I believe, called it that at the 
time, a riverboat gamble. Ronald 
Reagan said we could cut taxes and he 
was mainly interested in the wealthi- 
est, increase military spending, and cut 


the final version of the bill. 

I want to mention that, yesterday, 
the Food and Agricultural Policy Re- 
search Institute — a joint undertaking 
by Iowa State University and the Uni- 
versity of Missouri — did a study and re- 
leased it yesterday. They said that, re- 
garding the impact in agriculture on 
midwest farmers, the increased costs 
they would pay on the Btu tax would to 
a significant degree be offset by the 
lower interest rates that will come 
about, because we are reducing the def- 
icit. 

Farmers want lower interest rates, 
and this bill is going to give farmers 
those low interest rates that they need. 

Mr. President, now is not the time to 
repeat what we did in 1977 and stick 
our heads in the sand one more time on 


the deficit at the same time. That was^ energy. Now is not the time to take an- 
the riverboat gamble. f\other riverboat gamble like we did in 

I, quite frankly, think it was morel'^lDSl and say we can continue to let the 


closely in line with fraud than gam- 
bling. It led to a quadrupling of the 
Federal debt and the largest deficit in 
history. After years of smoke and mir- 
rors, after years of borrowing and 
spending, after years of acting like we 
can continue to import oil like there is 
no tomorrow, now we have an honest 
plan to cut the deficit, to make the 
wealthiest in our society pay just their 
fair share. 

Again, I will repeat that the top rate, 
prior to the Ronald Reagan tax cut, 
was up to 70 percent. This bill only 
brings it back up to 36 percent, up to 
almost 40 percent with the surtax on 
those making more than $250,000, a bit 
over half of what it was before then. 

Mr. President, it is a good plan. 
Again, some changes have to be made. 
There are some specific industries that 


wealthy in our country get by without 
paying their fair share of taxes and we 
can continue to run the deficit up. 

Now is the time to think about our 
children and to think about the future 
we are going to leave them. Now is not 
the time for smoke-and-mirror pro- 
grams like Gramm-Rudman that sound 
very good— oh, they sounded great, but 
with all this fluff and talk about 
Gramm-Rudman reductions, the deficit 
just kept going up all the time. 

No. Mr. President. Now is the time to 
make tough choices, to make the hard 
decisions, to do what we came here to 
do, and that is to set this country 
right, reduce the deficit, cut down on 
our energy dependance. and provide a 
better future for our children. 

Yes. there are tough choices. No plan 
is perfect. This plan is not perfect. But 


12086 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12087 


we have tried 12 years of trickle-down 
economics, and it has been a disaster 
for this country. 

President Clinton's plan contains 
some medicine that does not taste very 
good, but it is time that we take the 
medicine so that our children will not 
have to take medicine that is far more 
bitter. 

Mr. President, I anxiously, await, 
when we come back after our Memorial 
Day recess, to take up the President's 
reconciliation bill and have this de- 
bate. I think once the American people 
understand forthrlghtly and fully what 
we have set before them, I believe they 
are ready to make this tough decision 
and say, yes, we truly have to get the 
deficit down. It may hurt, but we have 
to do it for the future of our children. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. 
MURRAY). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Minnesota [Mr. DUREN- 
BERGER]. 

Mr. DURENBERGER. I thank the 
Chair. 

(The remarks of Mr. Durenberger 
pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1069 are located in today's Record 
under "Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.") 

Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam Presi- 
dent, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ab- 
sence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 
call the roll. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I 
ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 


Later Charles was appointed to be a 
member of the floor staff and counsel 
to the policy committee when Senator 
Byrd was majority leader. He also 
served as chief judiciary committee ad- 
viser to Senator BYRD. 

He consistently demonstrated the 
highest levels of professionalism in his 
work as chief floor counsel. I am abso- 
lutely confident that he will continue 
his remarkable work in the new chal- 
lenges he faces in the private sector. 
He will be missed a great deal by all of 
us whom he has helped on the floor of 
this Senate for many of these past 
years — night sessions, early morning 
sessions, always working to put to- 
gether a unanimous consent agreement 
or to help resolve a difficult situation 
with that remarkable sense of balance. 

So I am pleased to join the majority 
leader, the Republican leader, and oth- 
ers of my colleagues who have taken 
the opportunity to wish the best of 
luck and express a sincere gratitude to 
a person who has contributed so much 
to this institution. 

He leaves a significant mark here, a 
very positive one. I really wish him 
well— he is a splendid, splendid young 
man— and his family, also. 


TRIBUTE TO CHARLES KINNEY 

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I 
rise to pay a belated tribute to an indi- 
vidual who contributed a great deal to 
the better functioning of the U.S. Sen- 
ate for 19 years. I am referring to 
Charles Kinney— whom I met when I 
first came here — who on May 14 left the 
Senate to pursue a career with a Wash- 
ington law firm. Charles is a remark- 
able man who always dealt fairly and 
honestly with those of us on this side 
of the aisle. I trusted him. His knowl- 
edge of the Senate and Senate proce- 
dure is immense. Never once, since I 
have known him, have I ever heard any 
member say that Charles was anything 
less than cooperative and helpful, not 
only to the Democrats but to the Re- 
publicans, as well. 

Charles began his work in the demo- 
cratic cloakroom in 1974. He continued 
to work in the Senate while studying 
for his law degree; like his mentor. 
Senator Byrd, who took a law degree 
while he served in Congress, and we 
know the breadth of his intellect and 
brilliance. 


CONFIRMATION OF PAMELA HAR- 

RIMAN AS AMBASSADOR TO 

FRANCE 

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I 
would like to take this opportunity to 
remark on the confirmation of Pamela 
Harriman as Ambassador to France. 
Unfortunately, I was unable to come to 
the floor to speak in favor of the nomi- 
nation when Pamela Harriman was 
considered, and would now like to con- 
gratulate the President on this ap- 
pointment, and also to congratulate 
Ms. Harriman herself. 

The relationship between our Nation 
and France will be well served by this 
remarkable woman. I, like so many 
others, have been fortunate to have 
been the beneficiary of this delightful 
lady's kindness and generousness and 
graciousness. She has been to me a 
wonderful and supportive friend at a 
time when, I can assure you, I needed 
some friends. She will grace our Em- 
bassy in France with energy, skill, and 
elegance, not to mention a healthy 
dose of good common sense. 

I am particularly pleased with this 
appointment because France deserves 
our very best. And that is Pamela Har- 
riman. France was our ally before we 
had even become a nation. Indeed, 
France helped us to become one. Our 
countries have been on a parallel 
course every since, tied tightly to- 
gether. Both of our republics were cre- 
ated through revolution in the late 
18th century. We have fought two 
world wars as allies. In short, there are 
few bilateral relationships in the world 
with as much to bind them as ours with 
France. It is a relationship that de- 


serves to be tended well, and I am 
pleased that the President has dem- 
onstrated his commitment to it with 
this fine appointment. 

She will do well. We know of her bio- 
graphical background. And now she re- 
turns to the city in which she studied 
at the Sorbonne in Paris many years 
ago. 

Her public service began with ex- 
traordinary trials, working at the min- 
istry of supply and with women's vol- 
untary services in London during the 
war years of 1941 and 1942. She spent 
most of the war serving as assistant 
secretary of the Churchill Club in Lon- 
don, an organization of American and 
Canadian servicemen and officers. 

Ms. Harriman has shared her excep- 
tional insights and grasp of history 
with us in many important publica- 
tions, including "Our Moscow Blind- 
ers" in a 1992 edition of the Washington 
Post, and the prescient "Turkey De- 
serves Priority Attention" printed in 
the New York Times in 1988. On Decem- 
ber 7, 1991. the 50th anniversary of the 
Pearl Harbor attack, she published an 
evocative piece in the Washington Post 
describing Winston Churchill's reac- 
tion to the Pearl Harbor assualt — he 
understood that event, although tragic 
in the near term, meant the entry of 
the United States into the World War, 
ensuring the eventual defeat of Hitler 
and the survival of Great Britain. Pam- 
ela Harriman has shared many fine 
works with us describing the life and 
thoughts of Winston Churchill. It is 
not surprising that in recent years she 
has been drawn to support others who 
excel in public life. 

My wife Ann and I have the highest 
regard for this splendid woman. 

Again, I commend the President for 
this fine appointment and the Senate 
for confirming her. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, 
what is the situation with regard to 
the floor? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are 
conducting morning business at the 
present time. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Is there a time limit? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 
ator may speak for an unlimited 
amount of time. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I will just take a few 
more minutes. Madam President. 


THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED 
"DEFICIT REDUCTION PLAN" 

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I 
wish to speak in reference to the Presi- 
dent's proposed deficit reduction trust 
fund. In view of the recent action 
taken by the House to approve the 
President's tax plan, it is worth exam- 
ining whether such a trust fund will 
truly ensure that these new taxes are 
used for deficit reduction only. 

Madam President, my colleagues 
have already reminded us of how the 
Democratic Party reacted when Presi- 


dent Bush suggested a deficit reduction 
checkoff option for taxpayers. Senator 
Bob- Smith of New Hampshire tried to 
advance that proposal on the floor of 
the Senate, and was ridiculed for his ef- 
forts. 

I will try not to discuss the Presi- 
dent's suggestion in the same tone of 
voice in which my colleagues on the 
other side responded to President Bush 
last year. I debated this issue on the 
floor at that time and I remember how 
I felt, listening to our President being 
mocked— it was as though sarcasm and 
derision dripped from the words of 
Democratic Senators. I half expected 
to hear speakers begin to recite "For- 
give them. Lord, they know not what 
they do" as they shook their heads in 
sadness at the folly of the poor. old. 
wandering Republicans. 

So I will try not — and I just did — to 
resort to sarcasm and mockery in my 
remarks. But I remember that was the 
element and the essence of the remarks 
at that time. 

Madam President, there is a great 
temptation to note the irony and even 
humor in our Presidents proposing a 
deficit reduction trust fund some 
weeks ago. 

At least, when President Bush pro- 
posed earmarking taxpayer funds for 
such purpose, he displayed an aware- 
ness that taxes could only reduce the 
deficit if they were not spent. Thus, he 
proposed a mechanism for keeping 
them from being spent. 

If President Clinton proposed any 
new changes in Federal revenues or 
Federal expenditures specifically in 
conjunction with this deficit reduction 
trust fund. I am not aware of it. I think 
it is fair to say that the effectiveness 
or lack thereof of the President's defi- 
cit reduction plan will not be altered 
one penny by the creation of this trust 
fund. If the creation of a special trust 
fund will reduce our Federal deficit, it 
will be a true 'revolution in the arenas 
of finance. 

Personally, I know that my wife Ann 
and I would love to use this idea for 
our own personal finances, but I sus- 
pect the words, "don't try this at 
home" might well apply. 

"Don't try this at home" is what we 
should do to test things we do here, be- 
cause, if your salary does not change at 
home and your expenditures do not 
change at home, you will be hard 
pressed to reduce your personal debts 
by calling some of your money a debt 
reduction trust fund. 

Madam President, if you do set some 
of the money aside and designate it as 
a deficit reduction trust fund and this 
induces you to spehd less money, then 
certainly you will achieve your desired 
ends. But that is the key. is it not? 
Sure. You have to cut your own spend- 
ing to pay off your debts. It is true for 
governments as it is for individuals. 
Remember, we can still blame Presi- 
dent Reagan. President Bush, or the 


Democratic Congress — whoever you 
want — but we are headed into the bow- 
wows. 

If Hillary Clinton — and I give her 
high credit, an impressive person in 
government— if we do nothing in that 
area, it is going to cost us another $700 
billion in 5 years. And we will have to 
do something. Right now this issue of 
health care is costing us, at the end of 
this year, $900 billion. 

While we talk about messing around 
with $20 million here, $80 million there, 
the big bucks are just sucking us up. 
Entitlement programs have gone j up 24 
percent. We ought to be commelnding 
people like Sam Nunn and Pete DOmen- 
ici for their strengthening of America 
Report. We ought to be comm&inding 
Jack Danforth and Dave BoreIn be- 
cause they are the only ones tailking 
about how to save this countryi from 
absolute fiscal insanity. And that is do 
something with the entitlementi pro- 
grams. 

Why call them that? Call them' what 
they are— Social Security, Medicare, 
and Medicaid. And they are sucking us 
up. So, I commend those who are at- 
tempting to meet the President's pro- 
posals, but there is only one way to 
reach them and that is to do something 
with those programs. A deficit ceduc- 
tion trust fund will not get us there. It 
will not reduce the deficit. If we do not 
actually need to enforce spending cuts 
to reduce the deficit and could do it 
simply by saying certain of our money 
is in a trust fund, I do hope someone in 
this Chamber will assist me in applying 
this splendid idea to my own tattered 
personal finances. I suspect there are 
millions of Americans who are simi- 
larly eager to exploit this remarkable 
new method of deficit reduction as 
well, even though it does not look like 
the old cookie jar. 


THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL 
OFFICE 

Mr. SIMPSON. Finally— I appreciate 
the courtesy from the Chair — I just 
want to speak very briefly, 3 minutes, 
so we may repair to our homes and our 
constituents at town meetings and let 
them rain their remarkable com- 
mentary upon us during the recess. 
That is good. I like town meetings. 
They have torn all the hair off my 
head, but I am still going back for 
more, always. 

I want to speak on the controversy 
involving the White House travel of- 
fice. Some days ago, in an article in 
the Washington Post, there were dis- 
turbing revelations about how the 
White House had been operating in 
that arena. If this story is accurate, it 
seems that White House staff bypassed 
Attorney General Janet Reno and in- 
stead invited the FBI Director of Pub- 
lic Affairs to the White House. 

After this meeting, the FBI officer is- 
sued guidance to the Bureau's press of- 


ficers in the production of a statement 
that the FBI had "sufficient informa- 
tion to determine that additional 
criminal investigation is warranted" of 
the White House travel office. This 
statement, I must remind my col- 
leagues, was part of the evidence cited 
by the White House in its justification 
of the dismissal of the entire travel of- 
fice staff. 

Based on what we know to date, it is 
not conclusive that these White House 
staffers were attempting to politicize 
the FBI's procedures. However it is, I 
think, indicative of a disturbing series 
of consequences and coincidences. It is 
coincidental that, after a visit to the 
White House, the FBI issued a state- 
ment saying that additional criminal 
investigation is warranted. 

Also coincidental is the fact that 
White House counsel William Kennedy 
requested an FBI investigation of the 
White House travel bureau 3 days after 
the President's friend Harry Thomason 
complained to the White House about 
not having a piece of the White House 
travel business. 

Before that, a 3-month-old memo 
from the President's 25-year-old cousin 
suggested she be placed in charge of 
the travel offices operation. Only after 
this memo, coincidentally. did an FBI 
investigation of travel office proce- 
dures commence. 

Again, that is the chronology re- 
ported by the Washington Post. 

I am particularly disturbed by the in- 
formation about how Attorney General 
Janet Reno was apparently bypassed. 
All Americans were relieved to hear, at 
her confirmation hearings, Janet 
Reno's assurances to Congress that the 
Justice Department would not be po- 
liticized. I believe her. I really do be- 
lieve her. I believed her then. I believe 
her now. This is an extraordinary pub- 
lic servant. I have come to know her, 
and I hope I will have many more op- 
portunities to come to know her bet- 
ter. 

She stands tall in more ways than 
one! And when she said to us. "The 
buck stops here." that is a shocking 
statement for this city where, if you 
want to have a friend, you better buy a 
dog. 

The administration was most happy 
for her visibility at that the time in 
that vital role. So it is curious a Cabi- 
net Member of the highest integrity 
such as Attorney General Reno would 
have been bypassed here unless the per- 
petrators knew that were she informed, 
she would blow the whistle on the 
whole bizarre affair. 

There are many questions that are 
still unanswered about this travel trav- 
esty, but Americans deserve to know 
the truth. I join with our leader in his 
call for a congressional hearing on the 
controversy. I know Senator BiDEN, as 
my chairman of the Judiciary Commit- 
tee, will give that his every attention. 
But I can certainly say I think the 


I 

4i 


12088 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


May 28, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12089 


President is being ill-served by some. 
This is obviously gratuitous advice 
from me as a Member of the other 
party, but I do not want to see him fail. 

I think Mack McLarty, his Chief of 
Staff, is a splendid man, and I think he 
is doing his best. But I think they are 
still in a campaign mode up there. The 
sooner they get out of the campaign 
mode and decide it is governing time, I 
think, the sooner we will make some 
real progress. Turn the campaign folks 
loose, turn the night-tracking poll peo- 
ple loose. Let them go. Let them go 
rest for a while so the poor President 
does not have to get up every morning 
and take the night tracking poll and go 
tell people what he thinks they want to 
hear. That nearly killed George Bush- 
it did. 

Once you get into that mode as 
President of the United States, polling 
the people of America every night and 
thinking that you are giving them 
what they want, you will fail. And I 
have seen it occur. 

It is time to govern, time to do the 
hard decisions. We all know what we 
have to do — all of us. Democrat and Re- 
publican alike. So I hope we will be 
al^out ^jiat. 

I hope we will be about that. I hope 
that these things will come to pass in 
weeks to come and that our leader will 
continue to work with Senator Mitch- 
ell, as they do remarkably to do the 
Senate's work, even though they both, 
indeed, represent highly partisan posi- 
tions. 

But that is the Senate. I respect 
George Mitchell, and I respect Bob 
Dole. I respect my assistant leader, 
Wendell Ford. I enjoy working with 
them all. I wish them all a good recess, 
as well as the occupant of the Chair. 

Madam President, I suggest the ab- 
sence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk pro- 
ceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I 
ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 


RENEWAL OF CHINA'S MOST-FA- 
VORED-NATION TRADING STA- 
TUS 

Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. President, I rise 
to express my strong support for the 
President's decision to renew China's 
most-favored-nation trading status. I 
am pleased to see that President Clin- 
ton has adopted President Bush's 
thoughtful approach for another year- 
directing the course of change by main- 
taining a dialog and keeping the lines 
of communication open as we attempt 
to provide positive reinforcement for 
reform in the People's Republic of 
China. 

I do believe that each of us is very 
deeply concerned about the known 


human rights violations that exist in 
the People's Republic of China. We are 
also gravely concerned about China's 
transfer of sensitive missile and nu- 
clear weapons technology and many 
Members have expressed additional res- 
ervations about other critically impor- 
tant matters. 

These concerns are very real, and I 
would be deeply disturbed if the admin- 
istration were not taking steps to deal 
with them in a most aggressive and ap- 
propriate manner. I do believe that our 
responsibilities are best met when we 
use the appropriate nonconfrontational 
tools to deal with the problems of 
human rights, arms proliferation, and 
the trade deficit. 

My decision to support most-favored- 
n Jtloii status comes down to one very 
simple concern: How would we main- 
tain or increase our influence and dia- 
log with China — a country representing 
one-fifth of the world's population — if 
we were to withdraw a trade status 
which we give to 162 other countries on 
the face of the Earth? What do we gain 
from cutting off our nose to spite our 
face? Slamming the door on China 
would also be slamming the door on 
ourselves. 

If we are going to deal with the glob- 
al issues of the day, such as the envi- 
ronment and nuclear and conventional 
arms proliferation, we must include in 
those discussions the Peoples Republic 
of China. Without including the most 
populous nation on the Earth, many of 
thes&^critical international problems 
simply cannot be effectively dealt 
with. It is as basic and simple as that. 

We extend MFN to all but a handful 
of nations. Granting MFN actually 
constitutes nondiscriminatory rather 
than favorable treatment. This is eco- 
nomic policy and it is not a gift. We 
must recognize that our economy and 
our commerce benefits greatly by our 
granting of this trade status to other 
countries. 

On the issue of human rights, the 
President and last year's staunch sup- 
porters of conditional MFN are start- 
ing to come around— beginning to see 
the light. They are beginning to realize 
that only with the renewal of MFN for 
China can we best serve the cause of 
freedom and human rights in China. 
MFN is not the stick to be used on 
China to manifest our disagreement 
over that nation's human rights poli- 
cies. Retaliation in some form by 
China would be a certainty— and all 
that would accomplish would be the 
diminution of the influence we cur- 
rently have with this important na- 
tion. 

No other country is planning to deny 
China MFN status. Other countries will 
only move in — indeed, are moving in — 
to fill any gap we would foolishly leave 
open. 

I also strongly believe that the ad- 
ministration must continue to work 
with Chinese officials to encourage ad- 


herence to the Missile Technology Con- 
trol Regime [MTCR] guidelines and pa- 
rameters. 

I am also very much aware of the 
trade deficit that exists with China — it 
is serious indeed. The trade deficit 
must be dealt with immediately. I do 
not argue with that one whit. Yet. 
tying the trade imbalance to the re- 
newal of MFN is not the appropriate 
answer. We deal honestly and openly 
with other countries with which we 
have heavy trade deficits in an effort 
to try to reduce those figures, and that 
is what I think we should do in this 
case as well. 

We will fail in our efforts to advance 
American ideals and address serious 
global concerns on the environment, 
and we will fail in our efforts to bring 
China ever more fully into the world 
economy if we choose to deny them 
most-favored-nation status. Our for- 
eign and economic policies must be 
based on a far-reaching vision, not vin- 
dictiveness. Our American values and 
standards are far more likely to be re- 
ceived and embraced if they are pro- 
moted through an open door — not one 
slammed shut. 


CHINA'S TRADING STATUS 

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, 
this morning. President Clinton signed 
an Executive order extending most-fa- 
vored-nation trade status to China for 
1 year and placing conditions on the re- 
newal of that status following that 1- 
year extension. 

It is a welcome change in American 
policy. With this section, in order to 
continue its most-favored-nation trade 
status next year, China must make 
progress on human rights, fair trade, 
and nuclear nonproliferation. The con- 
ditions placed by the President on 
China today are fair and reasonable. 
They are appropriate expectations of 
decent international behavior. 

I commend President Clinton for his 
leadership on this issue. For the first 
time since the tragedy of Tiananmen 
Square, a President has been willing to 
take the initiative to act, to issue an 
Executive order to bring about positive 
change. 

During last year's campaign. Presi- 
dent Clinton vowed to reverse previous 
policy toward China. He has now done 
what he said he would do. His action 
today gives the administration a useful 
tool with which to encourage meaning- 
ful progress in human rights, in fair 
trade, and in nuclear nonproliferation 
by the Chinese Government. 

The Executive order signed by the 
President today is similar to legisla- 
tion entitled the United States-China 
Act of 1993, which Representative 
Nancy Pelosi and I introduced, she in 
the House and I in the Senate, last 
month. In order for China now to bene- 
fit from the lower tariff rates provided 
by most-favored-nation trade status 


after July 1994, President Clinton will 
have to indicate that China has acted 
to improve its policies. These are the 
goals set forth in our legislation. 

The conditions are not punitive or 
unfair. They are fair and reasonable. It 
is my hope that these conditions will 
encourage China's leaders to take the 
steps necessary to preserve and im- 
prove their relationship with the Unit- 
ed States. 

It is my hope that this action will 
contribute ultimately to the people of 
China and Tibet enjoying the freedom 
which Americans enjoy and for which 
people the world over long. 


AUTHORIZATION TO SENATOR 
ROCKEFELLER 

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I 
ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Rockefeller be authorized to sign 
duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions 
during the Senate's recess prior to 
June 7. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 


CONCLUSION OF MORNING 
BUSINESS 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 
any further morning business? If not, 
morning business is closed. 


CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING LIMIT 
AND ELECTION REFORM ACT OF 
1993 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will report the pending business. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

A bill (S. 3) entitled "Congressional Spend- 
ing Limit and Election Reform Act of 1993." 

The Senate continued consideration 
of the bill. 


ORDER FOR RECORD TO REMAIN 
OPEN 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate 
Record remain open today until 2 p.m. 
for the introduction of statements and 
legislation. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 


ORDERS FOR MONDAY AND 

TUESDAY, JUNE 7-8, 1993 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that when the Sen- 
ate completes its business today, it 
stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday, 
June 7; and that, when the Senate re- 
convenes on Monday, June 7, the Jour- 
nal of proceedings be deemed to have 
been approved to date, the call of the 
calendar be waived, and no motions or 
resolutions come over under the rule; 
that the morning hour be deemed to 


have expired; that following the time 
for the two leaders, there be a period of 
time for the transaction of morning 
business not to extend beyond 2:30 p.m., 
with Senators permitted to speak 
therein for not to exceed 5 minutes 
each; that at 2:30 p.m. the Senate re- 
sume consideration of S. 3, with Sen- 
ator Graham, of Florida, recognized to 
offer two amendments, one relating to 
broadcast discount for State and local 
candidates and a second relating to the 
FEC making grants to States to fund 
preparation and mailing of voter infor- 
mation pamphlets; that on Tuesday, 
June 8, at 9 a.m. the Senate resume 
consideration of S. 3, and that no vote 
occur relative to any amendment prior 
to 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 8. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 2 P.M., 
MONDAY, JUNE 7, 1993 

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, if 
there is no further business to come be- 
fore the Senate today, I now move that 
the Senate stand adjourned, in accord- 
ance with House Concurrent Resolu- 
tion 105, until 2 p.m. on Monday, June 
7. 

The motion was agreed to, and the 
Senate, at 1:37 p.m., adjourned until 
Monday, June 7, 1993, at 2 p.m. 


CONFIRMATION 

Executive Nominations Confirmed by 
the Senate May 28, 1993: 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

STEVEN ALAN HER.MAN. OF NEW YORK, TO BE AN AS- 
SISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 
PROTECTION AGENCY 

DAVID GARDINER. OF VIRGINIA. TO BE AN ASSISTANT 
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AGENCY 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

WEBSTER L HUBBELL. OF ARKANSAS. TO BE ASSOCI- 
ATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

DREW S. DAYS HI. OF CONNECTICUT. TO BE SOLICITOR 
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

MARILYN MCAFEE. OF FLORIDA, A CAREER MEMBER 
OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER- 
COLNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND 
PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
TO THE REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA 

WILLIAM THORNTON PRYCE, OF PENNSYLVANIA, A CA- 
REER ME.MBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE 
CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR. TO BE AMBASSADOR 
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNIT- 
ED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF HON- 
DURAS 

JOHN HOWARD FRANCIS SHATTUCK, OF MASSACHU- 
SETTS, TO BE ASSISTA.VT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR 
HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

CLARENCE L. IRVING, JR , OF NEW YORK. TO BE AS- 
SISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR COMMUNICA- 
TIONS AND INFORMATION 

D JAMES BAKER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. TO 
BE UNDER SECRETARY OF COM.MERCE FOR OCEANS AND 
ATMOSPHERE 

ARATI PRABHAKAR, OF TEXAS. TO BE DIRECTOR OF 
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECH- 
NOLOGY 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

SALLY KATZEN. OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE 
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND 
REGULATORY AFFAIRS. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 
BUDGET 

PHILIP LADER. OF SOUTH CAROLINA. TO BE DEPUTY 
DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT 
AND BUDGET 


STEPHEN H KAPLAN, OF COLORADO, TO BE GENERAL 
COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 
DEVELOPMENT 

MICHAEL A STEGMAN. OF NORTH CAROLLNA. TO BE AN 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DE- 
VELOPMENT 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

DAVID T ELLWOOD. OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE AN AS- 
SISTANT SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV- 
ICES. 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDE.NT 

CHARLENE BARSHEFSKY, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUM- 
BIA, -TO BE A DEPUTY US TRADE REPRESENTATIVE. 
WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR 

RUt'US HAWKINS YERXA, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUM- 
BIA, |T0 BE A DEPUTY- US TRADE REPRESENTATIVE. 
WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR 

* INTERNATIONAL BANTCS 

JOAN E SPERO. OF NEW YORK, TO BE US ALTERNATE 
GOVERNOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECON- 
STRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT FOR A TERM OF 5 
YEaJiS, UNITED STATES ALTEaiNATE GOVERNOR OF THE 
INTtR-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK FOR A TERM OF 
5 YEARS: UNITED STATES ALTERNATE GOVERNOR OF 
THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK FOR A TERM OF 5 
YEARS; UNITED .STATES ALTERNATE GOVERNOR OF THE 
AFRICAN DEVELOPME.NT FUND UNITED STATES ALTER- 
NATE GOVERNOR OF THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANTC; 
AND UNITED STATES ALTERNATE GOVERNOR OF THE 
EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOP- 
MENT. 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 
ADMINISTRATION 

KATHRYN D SULLIVAN, OF TEXAS. TO BE CHIEF SCI. 
ENTIST OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 

ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

MORTI.MER L DOWNEY. OF NEW YORK, TO BE DEPUTY 
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

MICHAEL P HUERTA, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE ASSOCI- 
ATE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

RODNEY E SLATER. OF ARKANSAS. TO BE ADMINIS- 
TRATOR OF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

STEVEN S HONIGMAN, OF NEW YORK, TO BE GENERAL 
COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

EDWARD L WARNER, III. OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN AS- 
SISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

ANITA K JONES OF VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF DE- 
FENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND LTIBAN 
DEVELOPMENT 

JOSEPH SHULDINER. OF CALIFORNIA. TO BE AN AS- 
SISTANT SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVEL- 
OPMENT 

MARILY'N A DAVIS. OF NEW YORK. TO BE AN ASSIST- 
ANT SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOP- 
MENT 

AIDA ALVAREZ. OF CALIFORNIA. TO BE DIRECTOR OF 
THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE OVER- 
SIGHT, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBA.N DEVELOP- 
MENT. FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

PHILIP BENJAMIN HEYMANN. OF MASSACHUSETTS. TO 
BE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

DOUGLAS KENT HALL. OF KENTUCKY. TO BE ASSIST- 
ANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND AT- 
MOSPHERE 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 
DEVELOPMENT 

ANDREW M CUOMO. OF NEW YORK. TO BE AN ASSIST- 
ANT SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOP- 
MENT, 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

JAMES RICHARD CHEEK, OF ARKANSAS. A CAREER 
MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE. CLASS OF 
MINISTER-COUNSELOR TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAOR- 
DINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES 
OF AMERICA TO ARGENTINA 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

HAROLD P SMITH, JR., OF CAUFORNIA, TO BE ASSIST- 
ANT TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ATOMIC EN- 
ERGY 

DEBORAH ROCHE LEE, OF MARY'LANTD, TO BE AN AS- 
SISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. 

EMMETT PAIGE, JR , OF MARYLAND, TO BE AN ASSIST- 
ANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

WALTER BECKER SLOCOMBE. OF THE DISTRICT OF CO- 
LUMBIA, TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
FOR POLICY 


12090 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


May 28, 1993 


June 7, 1993 


THE ABOVE NOMINATIONS WERE APPROVED SUBJECT ARMY. IN THE GRADE OF MAJOR GENERAL. UNDER THE 
TO THE NOMINEES COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO RE- PROVISIONS OF TITLE 10. UNITED STATES CODE. SEC- 
QUESTS TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY BEFORE ANY DULY TION 3037: 
CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE 

To be the judge advocate general and major 
general 

THE FOLLOWING-NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT 
AS THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL AND THE ASSIST- BRIG GEN MICHAEL J NARDOTTI. JR . 052-38-W92. US. 
ANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL. RESPECTIVELY. U S ARMY 


To be the assistant judge advocate general and 
major general 

BRIO. OEN. KENNETH D CRAY. 23«-70~59«S. US ARMY. 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 

SENATE— Monday, June 7, 1993 


12091 


IN THE ARMY 


The Senate met at 2 p.m., and was 
called to order by the Honorable Har- 
lan Mathews, a Senator from the 
State of Tennessee. 


PRAYER 

The Chaplain, the Reverend Richard 
C. Halverson, D.D., offered the follow- 
ing prayer: 

Let us pray: 

O give thanks unto the Lord: for he is 
good; for his mercy endureth for ever — 
Psalm 136:1. 

Gracious God our Father, we thank 
Thee for the Memorial Day recess. We 
thank Thee for the opportunity to be 
with family and friends — for personal 
rest and recreation — for opportunity to 
meet with constituents. We thank Thee 
for safety in travel and for all of the 
common blessings that are ours daily. 

We thank Thee for our positions as 
public servants, for the power and in- 
fluence to which we have been called. 
We thank Thee for the opportunity to 
return to the business of the Senate. 

May our lives demonstrate the grati- 
tude we feel for life and all its benefits. 
Help us live in ways that are pleasing 
to Thee, to whom belongs all glory and 
honor and praise. Amen. 


APPOINTMENT OF THE ACTING 
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Clerk will please read a communica- 
tion to the Senate from the President 
pro tempore [Mr. BYRD]. 

The legislative clerk read the follow- 
ing letter: 

. U.S. Senate,. 
President pro tempore, 

Washington, DC. 
To the Senate: 

Under the provisions of rule 1, section 3, of 
the Standing- Rules of the Senate, I hereby 
appoint the Honorable Harlan Mathews, a 
Senator from the State of Tennessee, to per- 
form the duties of the Chair. 

Robert C. Byrd. 
Presiderit pro tempore. 
Mr. MATHEWS thereupon assumed 
the chair as Acting President pro tem- 
pore. 


RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. Under the standing order, the Re- 
publican leader is recognized. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the lead- 
ers' time was reserved? 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The leaders' time has not yet 
been reserved. 

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent 
that the leaders' time may be reserved. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. Without objection, it is so or- 
dered. 


Mr. DOLE. The majority leader is not 
here and I would not speak before the 
majority leader. I understand he will 
not be here for a few moments. 


ELECTION OF KAY BAILEY 
HUTCHISON 

Mr. DOLE. I will take a minute or 
two to extend my congratulations to 
Kay Bailey Hutchison, who will be- 
come the 44th Republican Senator 
sometime this week or early next 
week. 

Of course, all elections are impor- 
tant. We do not like to see anyone lose. 
We like to see everybody win. It cannot 
happen in elections. So we are, of 
course, very proud on this side of the 
aisle to welcome Kay Bailey 
Hutchison. 

But I think beyond the election it- 
self, which was a 67-33 percent major- 
ity in the State of Texas, was a mes- 
sage to all of us. Republicans and 
Democrats and the Congress and the 
President and other members of his ad- 
mihistration, that the American peo- 
ple, expressed by the people in Texas 
last Saturday, are saying what we have 
been hearing in our own States, and 
they said it loud and clear — it is hard 
to mistake — cut spending first and stop 
all these new taxes. If anybody can 
read any other message into the Texas 
election, it is very difficult to do be- 
cause the Texas voters had the first op- 
portunity they had seen or heard about 
the package that passed the House and 
in the first year of that House-passed 
bill there are $35 billion in taxes and 
only $3 billion in spending cuts. That is 
12 to 1. That is not what the American 
people voted for when they voted for 
change, if that is what they voted for, 
last November. 

And so as we prepare to consider the 
President's so-called economic package 
on the Senate side, I would certainly 
hope my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle will take a look at the election 
returns. 

It is amazing that in a State with 264 
counties, the Republican candidate — 
Republicans have not always been that 
popular in Texas — carried all but I 
think 15 or 16 counties, and some coun- 
ties had never voted Republican. The 
Republican candidate won by big mar- 
gins. 

So my own view is that certainly we 
had an outstanding candidate. She did 
an outstanding job. She stuck with her 
message: Cut spending first and not 
raise taxes. If that message is lost on 
the Senate and we proceed to pass 
through this big, big, big tax package 
the President has proposed, my own 


view is it is going to cause the econ- 
omy a great deal of difficulty, but it is 
going to cause those who support it a 
great deal of political difficulty. 

So it is still my hope that we can 
start over and bring people together. 
Republicans and Democrats, and cut 
spending first, make the tough choices 
before we tell the American people we 
are going to impose more taxes, wheth- 
er it is the so-called Btu tax, the en- 
ergy tax, which is despised by almost 
every State in the Union, or whether it 
is a retroactive tax. 

Many taxpayers do not know that if 
we pass the House-passed bill, or some- 
thing similar, we will have imposed 
taxes on the American taxpayer start- 
ing this January— not next January, 
January 1993. So if this bill should pass 
and be signed by the President, you 
would have taxes for January, Feb- 
ruary, March, April, May, June, July, 
August, September, through this whole 
year. 

I do not believe 1 percent of the tax- 
payers know about this retroactive tax 
package. It ought to be stricken. It is 
not good policy. It is not fair to Amer- 
ican taxpayers. A lot of these tax- 
payers are small business men and 
women and subchapter S corixjrations. 
They are not the rich. So there are a 
lot of unfair provisions. 

The other thing we are doing, we are 
taxing more Social Security benefits 
for a lot of senior citizens who might 
accept that if we were using that 
money to reduce the deficit, but we are 
doing that so we can have $135 billion 
more in spending programs. 

And again, I have been in seven 
States this past week, and I did not get 
many people suggesting to me we 
ought to be spending more money on 
anything. 

We ought to be spending less money, 
in the view of the taxpayers, and we 
ought -to be raising taxes a lot less. 

So perhaps this will become the year 
of the taxpayer. Perhaps the election of 
Kay Bailey Hutchison will signal that 
the taxpayers of America do have a 
chance that their voices are heard in 
the Senate Chamber, in the House 
Chamber, in the White House, and all 
over this town. 

So it may be that the Texas voters 
will save the economy, because, if we 
listen to their warning and listen to 
their message, which was very strong 
and very clear and very loud, there is 
no way we can pass the President's pro- 
posal because it is taxes, taxes, taxes, 
taxes, taxes, with very little spending 
cuts. 

So I just believe that we have an op- 
portunity now to regroup, hopefully in 


9 This "buUet" symbol identifles statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor. 


12092 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


June 7, 1993 


June 7, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12093 


a bipartisan way, and let the American 
people know we do not have a hearing 
problem. When we get a message as 
loud and as clear as the one from the 
State of Texas last Saturday, we are 
able to understand it, and we are pre- 
pared to make the necessary changes 
to reflect the fact we did hear the mes- 
sage and we are prepared to act upon 
it. 

Mr. President, I reserve the remain- 
der of my leader time. 


The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. Without objection, it is so or- 
dered. 


MORNING BUSINESS 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be a period for the transaction 
of morning business not to extend be- 
yond the hour of 2:30 p.m. with Sen- 
ators permitted to speak therein for 
not to exceed 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk pro- 
ceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President. I ask 
unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. Without objection, it is so or- 
dered. 

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank 
the Chair. 


IRRESPONSIBLE CONGRESS? HERE 
IS TODAYS BOXSCORE 

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as any- 
one even remotely familiar with the 
U.S. Constitution knows, no President 
can spend a dime of Federal tax money 
that has not first been approved by the 
Congress of the United States, both the 
House and the Senate. 

So when you hear or read where a 
politician or an editor or a commenta- 
tor has declared that "Reagan ran up 
the Federal debt" or that "Bush ran it 
up," or that any other President ran it 
up, bear in mind that it was and is the 
constitutional duty of Congress to con- 
trol Federal spending. And Congress. 
Mr. President, has failed miserably for 
at least 50 years. 

The fiscal irresponsibility of Con- 
gress has created a Federal debt which 
stood at $4,294,168,230,173.50 as of the 
close of business this past Thursday. 
June 3. 1993. And averaged out. Mr. 
President, every man. woman, and 
child in America owes a share of this 
massive debt, and that per capita share 
of the debt exceeds more than $16,700. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 
of a quorum. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk pro- 
ceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded. 


THE BEST OF MEDICAL CARE 

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am de- 
lighted to be back in the Senate Cham- 
ber after missing a few days due to 
some problems with my heart. But I 
am much better. I have been absent for 
a few days undergoing some treatment 
that has been highly beneficial to me. 
And I feel much stronger. My strength 
is coming back. I want to say a few 
words, in particular, relative to the 
doctors and the hospitals that have 
treated me recently. 

I recently underwent treatment to 
clear a blocked coronary artery. One 
month ago, on May 6, I was admitted to 
Bethesda Naval Hospital for balloon 
angioplasty, commonly used to unclog 
heart arteries. While angioplasty en- 
joys a high rate of success, it is true 
that with a small number of patients— 
yours truly included — the damaged ves- 
sel closes back up, and further treat- 
ment is required. A total of five bal- 
loons were inserted into my artery, but 
they were ultimately unsuccessful in 
eliminating the problem. 

While again at Bethesda for observa- 
tion and tests over the weekend of May 
14 through 16, I had an excellent medi- 
cal team headed by our Capitol physi- 
cian, Adm. Robert Krasner. He is a 
great doctor, has a wonderful bedside 
manner, and really looked after me 
carefully throughout my illness, to- 
gether with an outstanding team of 
cardiologists at Bethesda. These in- 
cluded Dr. Robert Blacky. Dr. David 
Ferguson, and the doctors in the Cap- 
itol Physician's Office, Dr. Mark John- 
ston, and Dr. Brian Monahan. They all 
gave me excellent treatment, and ad- 
vised that after my coronary artery did 
not stay open as it should, that what 
might work for me was a new— and as 
yet unapproved by the Federal Drug 
Administration— procedure known as 
stenting, and that the University of 
Alabama's Medical Center in Bir- 
mingham was a leader in the develop- 
ment of this procedure. Of course, my 
care at Bethesda was the very best, but 
I certainly liked the possibility of 
going home to Alabama for any further 
• procedures that might prove necessary. 

Stenting is only available at a few 
medical centers nationwide, one of 
those being at the University of Ala- 
bama in Birmingham. A stent is a me- 
tallic, spring-like device as fine as a 
cotton thread inserted into the artery 
to prevent it from collapsing. It acts as 
a scaffold to ensure that the vessel re- 
mains open, and eventually is absorbed 
into the walls of the artery. Develop- 
ment of stents as a way of supporting 
damaged arteries began in the early 
1980's, and laboratory investigation of 
the Gianturco-Roubin flex stent which 
I received began in late 1985. Dr. Gary 


F. Roubin, one of its inventors, was the 
interventional cardiologist who per- 
formed the procedure on me. He has 
been developing this in recent years. 
His partner in its initial development 
was unfortunately killed a number of 
years ago, but Dr. Roubin had gone for- 
ward with it. 

Mr. President, not only am I feeling 
well and happy to be back on the job. 
I am pleased to report that on June 2, 
the Food and Drug Administration an- 
nounced its approval of the flex-stent 
for use in patients whose heart vessels 
closed Ijack up or threaten to close 
back up after balloon angioplasty. 

I ask unanimous consent that a copy 
of the press release announcing the 
Food and Drug Administration's ap- 
proval on Thursday of last week be 
printed in the Record at the conclu- 
sion of my remarks. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. Without objection, it is so or- 
dered. 

(See exhibit 1.) 

Mr. HEFLIN. In addition to the out- 
standing physicians and professionals 
that I have mentioned. I would like to 
extend a special thanks to my cardiolo- 
gist ■ and good friend. Dr. Gerald 
Pohost, professor of medicine and di- 
rector of the Division of Cardiovascular 
Disease at UAB, for his total profes- 
sionalism, expertise, and guidance. He 
is only one example of the caliber of 
medical personnel to be found at UAB. 

All of the staff— nurses, physicians, 
residents, and others — are outstanding 
professionals who speak well of the fa- 
cilities and the care available there. 
The University of Alabama in Bir- 
mingham is on the cutting edge of 
medical research, particularly that 
which deals with the treatment of 
heart conditions. 

The National Institutes of Health has 
praised UAB for its national role in 
medical research and for its state-of- 
the-art facilities. Likewise, academics 
and medical professionals consistently 
rate both the medical school and the 
hospital at UAB as among our coun- 
try's finest. 

I am very grateful to all of my col- 
leagues and staff who have been so sup- 
portive and thoughtful during my ill- 
ness. I trust that the newly found en- 
ergy which I expect to enjoy as a result 
of having this procedure will ready me 
for the gargantuan legislative battles 
that lie ahead. 

I am pleased to be back in the Sen- 
ate. 

Exhibit 1 
HHS News Release 

The Food and Drug Administration today 
announced the approval of a new medical de- 
vice to help keep open blocked heart arte- 
ries. 

The Gianturco-Roubin Flex-Stent Coro- 
nary Stent, made by Cook Inc. of Blooming- 
ton. Ind.. was approved for use with balloon 
angioplasty in patients whose heart vessels 
close back up or threaten to close back up 
during the procedure. This occurs in 2 to U 
percent of patients. 


The stent is an implantable, tube-shaped 
stainless steel mesh device, about one inch 
long. It is designed to remain in the artery 
after balloon angioplasty to keep artery 
open. ■ 

'•The coronary stent ^ives doctors another 
tool to treat diseased coronary arteries." 
said FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler. 
M.D. "It will be helpful for that small group 
of patients in whom balloon angioplasty 
might otherwise fail, causing heart attacks 
or even death." 

Balloon angioplasty is used to unclog heart 
arteries in patients with atherosclerosis, a 
progressive disease in which the heart arte- 
ries become blocked with fatty plaque, caus- 
ing chest pain, heart attack and death. 

In balloon angioplasty, a balloon-tipped 
catheter is threaded through an artery in the 
leg or arm to the heart artery. When the bal- 
loon reaches the blockage, it is inflated to 
compress the plaque against the artery 
walls. The balloon is then deflated, and the 
catheter withdrawn. 

Balloon angioplasty has a high success 
rate and is less risky and less costly than by- 
pass surgery. However, in some instances 
angioplasty fails and the artery partially or 
totally closes back up. forcing emergency 
surgery or causing heart attack or death. 

The stent helps prevent this problem by 
providing a means to keep the artery open. 
When it is apparent during balloon 
angioplasty that the artery has closed or is 
threatening to close, the balloon catheter is 
withdrawn and a stented balloon catheter is 
inserted. When the balloon inflates, the 
stent's mesh "scaffold" exf)ands and then re- 
mains in place to hold the artery open after 
the balloon catheter is removed. 

FDA's decision to approve the heart stent 
was based on a review of clinical studies of 
306 patients at 13 medical centers for two 
years. The studies showed that the stent sig- 
nificantly reduced the need for bypass sur- 
gery and incidence of heart attack in pa- 
tients whose artery had closed or threatened 
to close back up during balloon angioplasty. 

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, if the 
Senator will yield, I think this is the 
first time in history that I have felt 
comfortable in speaking for the U.S. 
Senate. But I welcome the Senator 
back. It is not the same when he is not 
here. So take care of that heart. 

Mr. HEFLIN. All right. You do the 
same thing. 

Mr. HELMS. We will do it together. 
Thank you. 

Mr. DURENBERGER addressed the 
Chair. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized. 


WELCOMING SENATOR HEFLIN 
BACK TO THE SENATE 

Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President. 
I came to the floor to talk about Medi- 
care. First, I want to say that I am so 
pleased, after about 5 weeks now. to see 
our colleague from Alabama back. I 
join in the comments made about him 
by another one of the people that has 
on occasion been absent from our midst 
for health and medical problems, our 
colleague from North Carolina. Both of 
them are walking testimonials to the 
fact that the health care system in this 

«M)«< (>-«7Vol. 13»(n.H)4 


country is the best in the world, wheth- 
er it is in Alabama or in North Caro- 
lina, here in this part of the country, 
or in the State of Minnesota. 

One of the prides that we can always 
take is in the high quality of medical 
care and medical progress. I particu- 
larly enjoyed my colleague's remarks 
about the new energy level that he has 
for the gargantuan effort ahead. My 
colleague, while he had to see the car- 
diologist and spend some time with an 
experimental procedure, is probably 
among those men and women in the 
U.S. Senate who does take care of him- 
self. All of the rest of us are admon- 
ished to go to the gym, to get exercise, 
and do all that sort of thing. 

I must say that I admire greatly the 
effort that my colleague from Ala- 
bama, with whom I came to this body, 
has put into an exercise regime, and all 
of the rest of those sorts of things 
which we are counseled to do. I 
thought he always had a lot of energy. 
He does not move quite as quickly as 
those of us from the North sometimes, 
but he man is incredible in energy and 
has incredible commitment. 

Senator Heflin was deeply missed in 
the 4 to 5 weeks of his absence. I must 
say, that is particularly true for those 
of us who on Wednesday morning enjoy 
his leadership in a fellowship prayer 
breakfast group he heads up. We missed 
him deeply at that time. We prayed for 
him. Obviously, being in the hands that 
he was. which he has already described, 
the prayers were unnecessary. Maybe 
they were for us, because we missed 
him a great deal, Mr. President. I am 
personally pleased to see him back in 

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I thank 
the Senators from North Carolina and 
Minnesota for their remarks. 


TARGETING MEDICARE AGAIN 
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President. 
I rise to voice my alarm at some recent 
proposals to use Medicare as a cash 
cow for a deficit reduction. I know it 
was in the President's proposal that 
was repeated again during the course of 
the recent recess period, and again the 
chairman of the Finance Committee 
made reference to it on a television 
program yesterday. / 

I thought it imporBant to come to 
the floor and ask my/colleagues to pay 
more than the usual amount of atten- 
tion to the fact that those of us who 
are challenged by having to cut a defi- 
cit by $500 billion probably ought to be 
thinking about cutting it by even 
more. But we ought to be careful about 
how we throw around phrases like 
"Health care costs are going up, and it 
is about time they come down," and be 
very careful about the fact that the 
challenge of taking on large expendi- 
tures like Medicare and Medicaid is not 
easily dealt with. 

I am convinced. Mr. President, that 
at this time, when we are right in the 


middle, as far as I can tell, of a debate 
on fundamental systemic reform of the 
health care system in this country, it 
does not make a lot of sense to look to 
Medicare as an easy hit on the deficit. 
I will try to explain why. 

In cutting reimbursements for doc- 
tors, hospitaLls, and other medical pro- 
viders, we around here get to call it a 
spending cut and get to pat ourselves 
on the back and say we have done a big 
deal. I can imagine right now that is an 
important thing for us to try to do, be- 
cause the proposal we got originally 
from the President had about $81 bil- 
lion in spending cuts and $350 billion or 
so in taxes. 

The American people obviously do 
not like it that way; they like it re- 
versed. So now all of the talk is about 
increasing the spending and reducing 
the amount of new taxes. So everybody 
is looking at some big, fat mallard that 
came through the duck blind that they 
can shoot at, and Medicare looks like 
one of those, as does Medicaid, because 
between them we are spending, I think, 
$190 billion a year. But the reality is. 
those are payments to doctors and hos- 
pitals in all of our communities. They 
go to the University of Alabama Hos- 
pital, the University of Minnesota Hos- 
pital. They go to 7.000 small hospitals 
all over America. They go to almost 
500.000 doctors and other medical care 
providers all over this country, as well. 

When we cut the reimbursements 
here in this body to doctors and hos- 
pitals, the hospitals and doctors raise 
their prices on patients, and the pa- 
tients pass the buck to the third-party 
payers. The third-party payers put it in 
the health insurance premiums that 
then get paid by you and me. 

Mr. President, the reality here is you 
are raising taxes, not cutting spending. 
You cut the Medicare or Medicaid 
spending on one hand, and raise the 
taxes on everybody in America on the 
other hand. That is just the way the 
system works. All of us. I think, know 
that. I hope we begin to hear, before we 
head in this direction, from those peo- 
ple who have been trying to get us to 
reform the system for a long time — the 
American taxpayers, the consumers of 
health care, doctors, hospitals.' and 
others more knowledgeable, appar- 
ently, than many of us are in this area. 

Basically, it is a shell game to say 
that we are able to cut overiiere, and 
it does not show up someplace else. 
What really bothers me about it are 
two things: One. it is not everybody in 
the country necessarily that pays all of 
these taxes as much as the sick people, 
because they actually go to the doctors 
and hospitals that get these costs shift- 
ed against them. 

The cost shifting is wrecking our 
health care market. It is probably all 
this cost shifting that is most respon- 
sible for the fact that the American 
people are desperate to get us to deal 
with health care reform. 


^ 


12094 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


June 7, 1993 


June 7, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12095 


Back in 1983, we began the reform 
process on Medicare with what was 
called DRG's, diagnosis-related 

groupings, for paying for hospitals. We 
found out that the people that run 
those hospitals did just exactly what 
we wanted them to do. 

They changed what was going on in 
those hospitals. We found out that a 
lot of things being done in hospitals did 
not have to be done in hospitals. They 
could be done in clinics or elsewhere. 
They had done the right things. 

We came along and said. "Thank you 
very much for helping us with chang- 
ing this process. Now we are going to 
start freezing. Now we are going to 
start limiting the increases. You want 
a cost-of-living increase. I am sorry. 
You are not going to get a cost-of-liv- 
ing increase." I think that was discour- 
aging to the hospital industry in this 
country. 

In 1989 and 1990, we decided to do the 
same thing with doctor services. We 
worked very hard to come up with a 
prospective price system for doctors 
through Medicare. One of the things we 
found was that the specialty care was 
very high, whereas primary care was 
very low. So we created something 
called resource-based relative values to 
bring them closer together. And, with 
the cooperation of the medical profes- 
sion, we agreed on a 5-year phaise-in 
which would bring down the increases 
in reimbursement to the surgeon spe- 
cialist and raise the reimbursement to 
the primary care family docs, the folks 
who do a lot of day-to-day work there 
in the local community, and we are in 
the process of doing that over a 5-year 
period. 

This is the wrong time for those who 
have not the guts to actually get Fed- 
eral spending appropriately, who come 
along and say. "We are now doing the 
right things in America. We are going 
to penalize you by taking the savings 
from this system and spending them on 
the deficit. " 

Mr. President, I bet in the State of 
Tennessee right now Medicare is prob- 
ably paying about 75 cents on the dol- 
lar of hospital and doctors charges. I 
would guess, as far as Medicaid or Med- 
icaid assistance is concerned in the 
State of Tennessee, it is probably like 
40 cents on the dollar. 

I invite the occupant of the chair to 
go home to Tennessee before he has a 
chance to vote on this and just check 
and see whether, or not a cut in Medic- 
aid is going to end up being a tax on 
the people of Tennessee. 

I invite particularly those on the Fi- 
nance Committee who see this as an 
opportunity to cut spending, cut the 
deficit, and I recommend that they 
take a very close look at this as an in- 
appropriate place to find money. We 
have to cut the deficit. We know that. 
Let us do it realistically and not by 
passing the costs of our actions on to 
the American people. And those of us 


who worked on DRG's and RBRVS's 
know that further tinkering is not the 
solution to the problems of Medicare. 
We need to take Medicare into the shop 
for a complete overhaul, not pick it 
apart for illusory short-term savings. 

As my colleagues will remember, the 
idea of DRG's was to move out of hos- 
pitals the procedures that could be bet- 
ter performed elsewhere. And RBRVS's 
were intended to equalize the relative 
value of doctor services, so that the re- 
imbursement of high-priced services 
would fall and the reimbursement of 
low-priced services would risi. 

But DRG's and RBRVS's have not 
successfully addressed the fundamental 
problems of Medicare — the cost-ghift- 
ing that results when providers have to 
cover the 60-80 cents on the dollar un- 
paid for by Medicare. 

Cutting reimbursements will not 
solve this problem. It will only make 
the problem worse. 

There has to be a better way. Indeed, 
the First Lady's task force is trying to 
devise a better way of doing Medicare 
even as we speak. So is the task force 
headed by my distinguished colleague, 
JOHN Chafee. 

We need to start looking at Medi- 
care — and the rest of the entitlement 
budget — in a much more fundamental 
manner, and make the tough choices to 
limit the increases in various entitle- 
ment transfer payments. I think that 
the health care reform process is giving 
us the opportunity of a lifetime to get 
those programs under control. 

At a time when we have such a his- 
toric opportunity to rationalize enti- 
tlements, I think it would be abso- 
lutely unconscionable to settle for a 
fiscal Band-aid that would do little 
more than paper over the real fiscal 
crisis. 

I ask my colleagues to join me in in- 
sisting that we do better than that. Let 
us use the collective brainpower we 
have to solve the problem— not just fig- 
ure out devious ways to disguise our 
fiscal cowardice from the American 
people. 

Mr. President. I yield the floor. 


controversial matters that were vigor- 
ously pursued by my good friend and 
Senate colleague from Arkansas. I 
know that Senator Bumpers will sorely 
miss Bruce's services, and I can hon- 
estly say that the State of Arkansas 
will miss his expertise as well. 

Mr. President, while I am pleased 
that Bruce will be assuming many im- 
portant responsibilities in his new role 
on the staff of the House Armed Serv- 
ices Committee, I must also express my 
own regret for his departure from the 
Arkansas congressional delegation 
staff. In the spirit of cooperation and 
service to Arkansas, Bruce often 
worked directly with my office on nu- 
merous matters, especially those relat- 
ed to the military. Although his con- 
tributions to Arkansas have been 
great, Bruce's tireless work on the be- 
half of Arkansas' military and defense 
industry matters has been of the great- 
est magnitude. He has been a true sol- 
dier in this capacity for the last 10 
years and his services will certainly be 
missed. 

Once again let me congratulate 
Bruce on his new position with the 
House Armed Services Committee and 
express my appreciation, on the behalf 
of the State of Arkansas, for his serv- 
ice to our State. 


COMMENDING BRUCE MacDONALD 

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I 
would like to express my appreciation 
for an individual who has assisted me, 
my staff, and indeed, the State of Ar- 
kansas for the past 10 years. Bruce 
MacDonald. who has long served as a 
legislative assistant to Senator Dale 
Bumpers, is leaving the ranks of the 
Arkansas congressional delegation 
staff to become a professional staff 
member of the House Armed Services 
Committee. 

Bruce has long been known as a high- 
ly capable and hard working Senate 
staffer. Bruce's indepth knowledge of 
various highly technical issues has al- 
lowed him to assist Senator Bumpers 
ably on many of the detailed and often 


THE NEW DYNAMIC OF 
DEMOCRATIC POLITICS IN TAIWAN 

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would 
like to call my colleagues' attention to 
recent political developments in Tai- 
wan. As a long time student of Taiwan 
political affairs. I am pleased to note 
dramatic changes occurring there. 

On December 19, Taiwan held the 
first full legislative elections in its 40- 
year history. All lifelong members who 
were originally from mainland China 
retired and their seats were open for 
election. As a result of these dramatic 
steps forward, a significant minority of 
the legislature is now composed of 
members of the opposition, the Demo- 
cratic Progressive Party [DPP]. The 
legislature has become more account- 
able to the people, acting as a greater 
check on other branches of the Govern- 
ment. 

In a recent paper which they were 
kind enough to share with me. entitled 
"Lien Chan, the First Native Taiwan- 
ese Premier: Reforms, Democratiza- 
tion, and Challenges, " Prof. Winston 
L.Y. Yang of Seton Hall University and 
Dean Cecilia Shu Chang, vice president 
of St. John's University, observed 
that^ 

The election of 161 legislators was a giant 
step toward greater democracy and an essen- 
tial move designed to rejuvenate the legisla- 
ture in Taiwan under the leadership of Presi- 
dent Lee Teng-hui. 

Another encouraging development is 
that, among native Taiwanese as well 
as among those of Chinese descent, 
there is a growing sense of Taiwanese 


identity, separate from that of China. 
For example, until recently the Tai- 
wanese Government, considering itself 
the rightful Government of all China, 
has been adamantly opposed to Tibetan 
independence from China. Recently, 
however, the Taiwanese Government 
altered its stance and no longer asks 
the Dalai Lama to first acknowledge 
that Tibet belongs to China before he 
can be invited to visit the island. In ad- 
dition, native Taiwanese — in the past 
victims of discrimination— are being 
appointed to senior political positions. 

As Dean Chang and Professor Yang 
noted, the first Taiwanese Premier in 
Taiwan's history was elected following 
the resignation of Premier Hau Pei- 
tsun. a mainlander: 

In a 109-33 vote, the newly elected legisla- 
tors gave their overwhelming approval for 
Lien to become the 14th ROC premier. At 56. 
he has thus become the first Taiwanese na- 
tive to serve in the post. * * * A close ally of 
President Lee. Lien has enjoyed Lee's strong 
support, trust, and confidence. His appoint- 
ment was also an important part of Lee's ef- 
fort to rejuvenate the government and trans- 
fer power from an older generation to the 
new and to give more power to the Taiwan- 
ese natives. 

Ambassador Harvey Feldman, our 
former representative to Taiwan, and 
currently an international consultant, 
concurs with these observations con- 
cerning political developments in Tai- 
wan. At a lecture he recently gave at 
Columbia University he noted encour- 
agingly: 

Perhaps the most salient observation to be 
made about the December 1992 Legislative 
Yuan election, this first in which all seats in 
that body were open to contest, is that the 
election groundrules showed a further evo- 
lution in the direction of democratic fair- 
ness. 

These developments give me a new 
sense of optimism about the opportuni- 
ties for peaceful political evolution 
elsewhere in the world. Taiwan has in- 
deed made great progress toward de- 
mocratization. However, many chal- 
lenges still remairi in the trans- 
formation of Taiwan into a true democ- 
racy. Ambassador Feldman, for in- 
stance, has focused on the lack of equal 
access to the media. He argues that, 
despite the many changes: 

This is not to say that the playing field has 
become completely level. Direct, candidate- 
to-candidate debates still are not allowed. 
* * * News coverage by the three legal tele- 
vision stations still shows a distinct bias in 
favor of KMT candidates. Although this is 
balanced somewhat by oppwsition candidate 
use of the "underground" cable TV system, a 
system which forces candidates to resort to 
illegal or quasi-legal means to get their mes- 
sage to the public is obviously defective. 

The absence of a free and fair media 
is the most critical obstacle to the 
achievement of greater democracy in 
Taiwan. All three TV stations are con- 
trolled by the Kuomintang party. 
Thus, there is a need for an independ- 
ent media in Taiwan to ensure freedom 
of expression and greater access to in- 


formation in future elections. Only 
then will all parties be able to express 
their views through debates and will 
the news coverage be impartial. 

In addition, Taiwan must be encour- 
aged to change its election commis- 
sions to make them truly independent 
bodies, with stepped-up educational 
programs to prevent vote buying, and 
increased enforcement of election laws 
in general. These steps should be taken 
to ensure greater voter confidence in 
future elections. 

The rapid political developments in 
Taiwan have been accompanied by 
great economic change, as economic 
policies must increasingly be account- 
able to the people of Taiwan. There are 
many positive developments such as 
President Lee Teng-hui's initiation of a 
S50 billion development plan. Other 
economic problems such as the need for 
greater social welfare, the growing def- 
icit, and its deteriorating trade rela- 
tions with other countries, will have to 
be addressed by the new legislature and 
the President. Dean Chang and Profes- 
sor Yang discussed these economic is- 
sues confronting the Taiwanese Gov- 
ernment. 

The government's budget deficit is growing 
while the strong demand from more spending 
on social welfare programs has made it vir- 
tually impossible to significantly reduce the 
deficit. Moreover. Taiwan's industrial base is 
confronted with a continued exodus of enter- 
prises looking for a better investment envi- 
ronment in Southeast Asia. Mainland China, 
and elsewhere. In foreign trade, there are 
such serious problems ais Taiwan's shrinking 
global trade surplus, the huge trade deficit 
with Japan, and the U.S. threat of trade re- 
taliation. * » * The controversial land tax 
and the unequal distribution of wealth which 
is deteriorating the living standards of the 
poorest 20 percent of Taiwan's population are 
also among the many difficult issues for 
Lien. ' 

We should all applaud Taiwan's de- 
mocratization and encourage its fur- 
ther development. The peaceful evo- 
lution of this island nation toward de- 
mocracy is a model to which other 
countries, struggling to improve their 
systems of government, should look. 


CONCLUSION OF MORNING 
BUSINESS 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. Morning business is now closed. 


CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING LIMIT 

AND ELECTION REFORM ACT OF 

1993 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration 
of S. 3. which the clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

A bill (S. 3) entitled the "Congressional 
Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 
1993." 

The Senate resumed consideration of 
the bill. 


Pending: 

(1) Mitchell/Ford/Boren amendment No. 
366. in the nature of a substitute. 

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I sug- 
gest the absence of a quorum. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk pro- 
ceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum called be rescinded. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. Without objection, it is so or- 
dered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 386 

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, we return 
today to discuss the campaign finance 
reform bill. This is a crucial week in 
terms of action on that particular 
piece of legislation. 

For over a decade, the Congress has 
struggled to come to grips with this 
problem. It is a problem that really 
faces this institution and it faces the 
American people. It is basic to the 
health of our political system. 

All of us understand what has hap- 
pened. The political system is being 
corrupted by having too much money 
pour into the system in terms of fi- 
nancing of campaigns. Over $600 mil- 
lion was spent by candidates for the 
House and Senate during the last elec- 
tion cycle — over $600 million. 

More and more the people have come 
to believe, as they observe this election 
system of ours, that elections are being 
decided not on the basis of the quali- 
fications of the candidates, not upon 
the basis of which candidates has the 
best ideas to solve the problems facing 
this country, but on the basis of which 
candidates can raise the most money. 
And in well over 90 percent of the 
cases, the candidate that receives the 
most in terms of political contribu- 
tions ends up wining the election. 

The American people see that process 
at work. They see the fact that incum- 
bents — as long as there are no spending 
limits in the campaign system, as long 
as you can raise as much money as you 
possibly can and spend as much money 
as you can get your hands on, the sys- 
tem runs out of control — the people see 
that incumbents are given an enor- 
mous advantage. The average sitting 
Member of the House or Senate can 
raise $3 in campaign funds for every $1 
raised by challengers. 

So the people are concerned. There is 
too much money pouring into the sys- 
tem having too much impact. Members 
of Congress are spending their time not 
solving the Nation's problems but rais- 
ing campaign funds, becoming part- 
time Members of Congress and full- 
time fundraisers. They see a system 
that is being distorted, that gives too 
much of an advantage to those sitting 
Members of Congress and too little op- 
portunity to new people trying to 
break into the system because the 
money flows in on the side of the in- 


i ■ 


12096 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


June 7, 1993 


June 7, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12097 


cumbents. And they see too much of 
that money coming, not from small 
contributors back at the grassroots 
and the home States of the candidates, 
but too much of that money coming 
from special interest groups, political 
action committees controlled here in 
Washington by a few lobbyists or con- 
trolled by others who are outside the 
home States or districts of those Mem- 
bers of Congress. 

They see that our half the Members 
of Congress elected last time received 
over half of all thjir contributions, not 
from the people back home, not from 
the people in their home States, but 
from the PAC's, the political action 
committees and the special interest 
groups. 

The people do not like what they see. 
They see the giving by political action 
committees further distorts the advan- 
tage given to incumbents. In the last 
election cycle, PAC's gave $9 to sitting 
Members of the House for every $1 they 
gave to new people trying to break into 
the political system. 

So when you £isk the American peo- 
ple, in poll after poll, "Do you believe 
the Congress represents people like 
you? That Members of Congress care 
about people like you? That they un- 
derstand your problems? That they are 
trying to deal with them?" Almost 80 
percent of the American people sadly 
say that they do not believe that Con- 
gress represents people like them. 

The money chase, more and more 
money coming into the system, more 
and more money being poured into 
campaign coffers, more and more of it 
coming from the special interest 
groups, this leads to the disillusion- 
ment of the American people. 

Mr. President, we are the trustees of 
this institution. We are the only people 
who will have an opportunity to vote 
to change this system because we cur- 
rently hold these chairs. These posi- 
tions do not belong to us, these offices 
do not belong to us — they belong to the 
American people. We are simply here 
as their trustees and their representa- 
tives. And the American people are 
saying to us, "How long are you going 
to let it go on?" 

When I first ran for the Senate I had 
to spend almost $500,000. I thought that 
was an enormous amount of money. It 
worried me. How could I possible raise 
that amount of money to be successful 
and would I have to make commit- 
ments to people to raise that money 
that would, in some way, leave me less 
than a free agent to do what I thought 
was right when I got here? And 15 years 
later, Mr. President, the average cost 
of winning a U.S. Senate is not $500,000, 
as it was at the time that I came here. 
It is over $4 million. How long are we 
going to wait? Are we going to wait 
until it is $10 million. $20 million? It 
continues to go up at a very rapid rate. 

When you think about what it takes 
to raise $4 million — and that is in a 


small State. We are not talking about 
New York or California, where cam- 
paigns have run up to $40 million be- 
tween two candidates. We are talking 
about a small State. When you think 
about raising $4 million over 6 years to 
run for election and reelection to the 
U.S. Senate, that comes out to about 
$15,000 every single week for 6 years. 

Think of the pressures that puts on 
the Members to raise that money. 
Think about the Member of the Senate 
sitting in his office or her office with 
very little time to spare, in the middle 
of a busy day and the receptionist 
buzzes in and says "There are eight 
people here who want to see you. You 
have only 5 minutes, who do you want 
to see?" The student who came up here 
who is interested someday, perhaps, in 
entering public life himself or herself? 
A farmer? A teacher? A factory work- 
er? Or there is also a PAC manager 
here that can write you a check for 
$10,000— $5,000 for the primary and 
$5,000 for the general election, and 
maybe he or she can hold a fundraiser 
here for you in Washington and raise 
$200,000 for you in one night? And you 
are sitting there thinking how do I 
raise that $15,000 this week, or if it is 
close to your election you are think- 
ing, how do I raise $100,000 this week? 
And human nature being what it is, are 
you going to take that precious 5 min- 
utes of your time to listen to input 
from the teacher or farmer or factory 
worker or small business person strug- 
gling to pay his payrolls or her pay- 
rolls? Or are you going to spend that 
time with somebody who might be able 
to provide those funds that you des- 
perately have to have in order to suc- 
cessfully mount a reelection campaign? 

All too often that decision is made to 
see those who have the financial means 
to help finance your campaign, not be- 
cause you want to do that but because 
the system forces you into that situa- 
tion. How do you feel about it when 
that happens? You feel, "That is not 
why I came here. That is not why I ran 
for the Congress of the United States. 
That is not why I wanted to be a Sen- 
ator. I wanted to be here to do some- 


control over their own Government is 
slipping away and we are putting our 
offices on the auction block for sale to 
the highest bidder instead of being re- 
sponsive to the American people. 

So, all of us what is wrong with the 
current system. The question is, how 
long will we wait to do something 
about it? The majority leader has indi- 
cated that he hopes to finish this bill 
this week. We have been engaged in bi- 
partisan negotiations that I think 
show promise. We have made very 
good, constructive progress. All I 
would say. in opening the debate on 
this bill this week, it is time for us to 
answer the question. As one editorial 
writer said, "It is put-up or shu£-up 
time about campaign finance reform." 
If we are not going to do anything 
about it, let us say so. Let us just tell 
the American people: No, we want to 
let unlimited amounts of money con- 
tinue to pour into the system and eat 
away at the strength of this democracy 
and the trust of people in their own 
Government. Let us just tell them we 
do not have the courage to do anything 
about it or the will to do anything 
about it; that we are not going to keep 
faith with the American people who 
sent us here, we are going to continue 
to let the special interests pour more 
and more money into our campaigns 
and continue to support a system that 
makes it almost impossible for chal- 
lengers and new people to break into 
the political system of this country. 

Let us not be surprised, if we do not 
keep faith, if we do not show ourselves 
ready to make the changes, that the 
people themselves are going to con- 
tinue to express their frustration and 
their anger and their disappointment 
and their resentment. 

Why did the voters in 14 States vote 
in favor of term limits the last time it 
was on the ballot? It is because they 
are so frustrated and they do not know 
what to do. They know the system is 
not working as it should and they see 
the great advantage the system seems 
to give to incumbents over challengers. 
They cannot think of anything to do if 
their own representatives will not do 


thing to help serve my country." And anything about it and so they strike 


you do not feel good about it. 

Probably that person, even represent- 
ing the political action committee, 
does not feel very good about it either. 
I have talked to many people who rep- 
resent various groups like that who 
say. I wish we could reform, the system 
because we are caught up in an arms 


out however they can by casting pro- 
test votes when th^| issues are on the 
ballot. '^L 

No, it is time fW^s to answer the 
question: When will^we put a stop to 
the money chase that is distorting 
American politics? It is time for us to 
answer we are going to do it now. We 


race. One group is played off against are going to take up the challenge of 


another. If the banks give to a can- 
didate, the insurance companies feel 
they have to give to a candidate and 
the securities people feel they have to 
give to the same candidate, because, 
otherwise, their interests are different 
and they better not be left out. They 
better be able to have the access. And 
the people back home do not feel good 
about it because they feel that their 


the majority leader, the challenge 
given to us by the President who has 
endorsed strong, meaningful campaign 
finance reform, and we are going to do 
it this week. 

I cannot think of a better week for 
the American peoplft that we can pos- 
sible have than to end this week by 
passing legislation that will put a limit 
on runaway campaign spending, the in- 


fluence of special interest groups in 
American campaigns and to do it with 
some support from both sides of the 
aisle, because this is not a Democratic 
problem, or a Republican problem, it is 
an American problem, and do it with a 
bill that does not seek to advantage 
one political party over the other. That 
is our challenge; that is our oppor- 
tunity. 

I again extend my hand to those on 
the other side of the aisle to work with 
us. We are making good progress in our 
negotiations on this matter. We ac- 
cepted several amendments before the 
recess offered from the other side of 
the aisle that strengthened the bill, 
from their point of view. We are ready 
to take action. We ought to do the job. 
We ought to finish our work this week 
and we ought to end this week with a 
victory for the American people and for 
strengthening this institution and re- 
storing vitality to this institution and 
rebuilding that torn trust between the 
American people and the Members of 
Congress by passing this bill this week. 
It is time to answer the question, it is 
time to get our work done, and I am 
optimistic that we can do it. 

I am going to yield the floor in just 
a moment. The distinguished Senator 
from Florida [Mr. Graham] had indi- 
cated before the recess that he had 
some amendments to offer. Some we 
acted on prior to the recess. He indi- 
cated to the managers of the bill that 
he has two other amendments that he 
wishes to offer. It is my understanding 
that we will vote on these amendments 
tomorrow, I believe, at 9 o'clock. I am 
told that is not yet set. The indication 
is we will discuss these amendments 
today, and if they require rollcall votes 
that the rollcall votes on those would 
not occur before 9:30 in the morning, if 
rollcall votes are set. It could be set 
later than that time but not before 
9:30. 

I am pleased to yield the floor to my 
colleague from Florida. He is the per- 
son who has thought long and hard 
about campaign finance reform. He has 
had very innovative ideas. He cares 
about this subject, and he has in the 
past offered many good, constructive 
suggestions. Sometimes we have agreed 
on the details of his amendments; 
sometimes we have not agreed on the 
details. But I say to my colleague how 
much I appreciate his work, and the 
people of his State who sent him here 
should appreciate the fact that they 
have a Senator who does indeed care 
about reforming the system and is 
making every effort to make a per- 
sonal contribution to that process. 

I yield the floor so that the Senator 
from Florida may offer his amend- 
ments today and also discuss them to 
any degree he wishes to day. And if 
they do require votes, they would occur 
sometime in the morning after 9:30. 

Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair. 


The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. 
MURRAY). The Senator from Florida is 
recognized to offer two amendments. 

AMENDMENT NO. 389 

(Purpose: To authorize the Commission to 
make grants to States to fund the prepara- 
tion and mallingr of voter information pam- 
phlets) 

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President. I 
appreciate the gracious words of my 
friend and colleague from Oklahoma. I 
associate myself with the passion with 
which he has outlined the importance 
of the task that is before us and the 
sense of urgency that we complete that 
task this week. I for one will offer my 
assistance in any way possible to 
achieve both the objective of success 
and success within a timely period. 

The sponsor of this legislation, our 
colleague from Oklahoma, has made a 
very powerful case as to why it is im- 
portant now to move on the evil of the 
excessive influence of money in Amer- 
ican politics. 

I believe that it is also necessary to 
complement that reduction of the in- 
fluence of money with some other 
forms of information and education 
that will be made available to the peo- 
ple. 

As much as we may decry the 30-sec- 
ond television spot, there is some evi- 
dence that it is the very existence of 
that flood of advertising which typi- 
cally occurs in the days and weeks be- 
fore an election that helps to make the 
public aware that. yes. there is about 
to be an election, to get them inter- 
ested in the personalities and to con- 
tribute to the likelihood of their going 
to the polls and participating. Even the 
dismal turnout that too often charac- 
terizes political campaigns would argu- 
ably be even worse if we did not have 
the number of advertisements that all 
that money pays for. 

So as we are about the business of re- 
ducing the influence of money and re- 
ducing the influence of the things that 
that money buys, what is it that we 
should attempt to substitute to give 
the public better information upon 
which to make judgments, better infor- 
mation upon which to stimulate their 
interest in the democratic process? 

Madam President, I am going to offer 
two amendments today which will be 
voted on tomorrow which are intended 
to do that. They are also intended to 
do another important thing, and that is 
to recognize the fact that this is a fed- 
eral system of Government. We are all 
here elected to the U.S. Senate and our 
colleagues in the other Chamber, to the 
House of Representatives, as Federal 
officials. But there are also, as both 
the Presiding Officer, a former State 
legislator in her State of Washington, 
and the sponsor of the legislation, a 
former Governor of the State of Okla- 
homa, as well as myself who had the 
privilege of occupying both of those po- 
sitions in my State of Florida, as we 
recognize, there are literally hundreds 


and thousands of State and local offi- 
cials who are part of the American po- 
litical scene. In fact, many would say. 
and I would be one of them, that that 
is the essence of the American demo- 
cratic system; is placing responsibility 
as close as possible to the people who 
will be influenced by the discharge of 
that responsibility. 

So as we are concerned about the in- 
fluence of money and the corrosive ef- 
fects that it has had at the Federal 
level. I suggest that it is appropriate 
that we also be concerned about its 
same effect at the State and local level 
and use this as an opportunity to en- 
courage actions which will reduce the 
influence of money throughout the po- 
litical system and which will encour- 
age the development of some new and 
more appropriate means of providing to 
the public information. 

It is to those ends. Madam President, 
that I offer two amendments. 

The first amendment I send to the 
fiftflk 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will report the amendment. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] 
proposes an amendment numbered 389. 

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President. I 
ask unanimous consent that the read- 
ing of the amendment be dispensed 
with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as fbllows: 

At tne end of title VII add the following: 

SEC. . GRANTS FOR VOTER INFORMATION PAM- 
PHLETS. 

Title III of FECA. as amended by section , 
is amended by adding at the end the follow- 
ing new section: 

"GRANTS FOR VOTER INFORMATION PAMPHLETS 

"Sec . (a) DEFiNmoN.— For the purposes 
of this section, the term 'eligible candidate 
for Federal office" means a candidate who 
has filed a declaration with the Commission 
stating the candidate's agreement to abide 
by expenditure limits determined under this 
Act. 

"(b) Grants.— The Commission may make 
grants to the States to assist in paying for 
the preparation and mailing of voter infor- 
mation pamphlets in connection with gen- 
eral elections for Federal office. 

"(c) Contents.— A voter information pam- 
phlet shall contain (in addition to any infor- 
mation pertaining to State and local elec- 
tions, referenda, candidates, issues, or other 
matters that may be included) a statement 
submitted by each eligible candidate for Fed- 
eral office in the State that— 

•(1) shall be comprised of no more than 900 
words: and 

"(2) describes the occupation, occupational 
background, government experience, and 
educational background of a candidate and 
any other information concerning the can- 
didate or the candidate's views as the can- 
didate chooses to include. 

"(d) Mailing.— 

"(1) In general.— a voter information 
shall be mailed, in time to be delivered be- 
tween 15 and 30 days before the date of a gen- 
eral election for Federal office, to each 
household in a State. 

"(2) Mailing lists.— To assist a State in 
the mailing of voter information pamphlets. 


\ 


12098 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


June 7, 1993 


the United States Postal Service shall pro- 
vide to the appropriate State officer, without 
charge, a list of the mailing addresses of all 
households in the State. 

•'(e) Federal Share— The Federal share of 
the cost of the preparation and mailing of a 
voter preparation pamphlet shall bear the 
same proportion to the total cost of the 
preparation and mailing of the pamphlet ais 
the volume of the statements of candidates 
for Federal office bears to the total volume 
of the pamphlet.". 

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, 
this first amendment is an attempt to 
build upon what has already happened 
in 13 of our States, including the State 
of our Presiding Officer, and that is the 
development of the concept of a voter 
I)amphlet in which the voters of a 
State receive through the mail an im- 
partial set of information about can- 
didates and referendum issues and 
other matters that will be the subject 
of their political participation at the 
upcoming election. 

The State of Oregon has had this sys- 
tem now for almost 90 years, and it has 
proven to be a very effective means of 
involving people, giving them informa- 
tion. 

I am suggesting that the role of the 
Federal Government be not to mandate 
that States have this particular form 
of voter information, but rather where 
a State elects to do so and where a 
State makes a further election to re- 
quest a Federal grant, that there be 
Federal funds available to pay the pro- 
portionate share of the pamphlet's cost 
as the number of pages committed to 
Federal candidates would indicate ap- 
propriate. 

To give some numbers, one of the 
States which has such a voter guide 
today is the State of California, our 
largest State. During the last election 
cycle, 14 million of these pamphlets 
were produced at a cost of $3.5 million. 
It is estimated that the percentage of 
Federal candidates would be in the 
range of 10 to 20 percent of the total 
candidates and the total other noncan- 
didates, such as constitutional amend- 
ments or referendums which were de- 
scribed within that voter pamphlet. 

So, in the case of California, if that 
were the percentage, that would indi- 
cate that the Federal share would be in 
the range of $350,000 to $700,000. For the 
Presiding Officer's State of Washing- 
ton, there were 2.5 million voter pam- 
phlets published in the last election 
cycle at a cost of $875,000. So. for Wash- 
ington, if the same percentage applied, 
the Federal share would be somewhere 
in the range of $87,500 to approximately 
$170,000. 

Madam President, I think that is a 
very minor contribution of the Federal 
Government in order to encourage 
States to adopt this particular form of 
voters information, which, in my opin- 
ion, would help to fill some of the gap 
that will be created by the restrictions 
on total spending which will be the re- 
sult of this legislation and the lessened 


amount of political information which 
will be transferred through paid forms 
of media. 

Madam President, the Budget Com- 
mittee has reviewed this bill and found 
that there is no significant budget im- 
pact. 

I might say that one of the things 
which appeals to me in this bill is we 
are inserting a provision that can- 
didates who are running for election in 
their election year, such as those who 
will be running in 1994, cannot use 
franked mail, that is, mail that is pro- 
vided free of charge to Members of Con- 
gress, for mass mailings. That was 
done out of the concern that those 
mass mailings might be or might have 
the appearance of being used for elec- 
tion-year campaigning. 

I suggest that what the Federal Gov- 
ernment is going to save by that re- 
striction on franked mail by incum- 
bents during the year of their election 
would overwhelm what the Federal 
Government might be called upon to 
make in the form of grants to those 
States which have these voter bro- 
chures and which would elect to re- 
quest Federal grants for the Federal 
share. It is my hope that with this en- 
couragement more States, eventually 
all States, will adopt what has proven 
to be such an effective means of voter 
information in the 13 States which cur- 
rently utilize the voter brochures. 

Madam President, that completes the 
remarks I have on the first amend- 
ment. I ask if there is any discussion of 
that amendment. And, if not, I am 
going to move that this amendment be 
set aside for the purposes of offering a 
second amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the 
Senate repeat his request. 

Mr. GRAHAM. My request, in the 
form of a suggestion. Madam Presi- 
dent, is if anyone has any comments 
that they wish to make on the first 
amendment, this would be the appro- 
priate time to do so. If not, I intend to 
move to set the first amendment aside 
for purposes of offering a second 
amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from Oklahoma. 

Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I was 
going to say I think the Senator cer- 
tainly explained his amendment very 
well. I know, of course, that many of 
our colleagues are on their way back 
after the recess. But I think the Sen- 
ator certainly has done an excellent 
job, and all of that information will be 
in the RECORD for those Senators prior 
to the consideration of this amendment 
tomorrow. So I have no objection at all 
to setting this aside temporarily to 
offer and explain the other amendment 
as well so that they both will be before 
the Senate when the Members return 
tomorrow. 

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator. 

Madam President, I ask unanimous 
consent that the first amendment be 
set aside. 


. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 390 

(Purpose: To make the broadcast discount 
available only to candidates for Federal or 
State office who undertake to abide by rea- 
sonable spending limits established under 
law) 
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I 

send to the desk a second amendment. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 
The bill clerk read as follows: 
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham) 

proposes an amendment numbered 390. 

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President. I 
ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 50. strike line 23 and all that fol- 
lows through page 51. line 19. and insert the 
following; 

(a) Broadcast Rates.— Section 315(b) of 
the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
315(b)) is amended to read as follows; 

■■(b)(1) The charge made for the use of a 
broadcasting station by an eligible candidate 
in connection with the candidate's campaign 
for nomination for election, or election, to 
public office shall not exceed— 

•■(A) during the 30 days preceding the date 
of a primary or primary runoff election in 
which the candidate is a candidate, a charge 
equal to the lowest charge of the station for 
the same amount of time for the same period 
on the same date: 

"(B) during the 60 days preceding the date 
of a general or special election in which the 
candidate is a candidate — 

"(i) in the case of charge that is to be paid 
by a voucher issued under section 503(c)(1)(B) 
of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
by reason of the independent expenditure 
amount, the lowest charge of the station for 
the same amount of time for the same period 
on the same date: and 

■■(ii) in any other case. 50 percent of the 
lowest charge of the station for the same 
amount of time for the same period on the 
same date; and 

"(C) at any other time, the charge made 
for comparable use of such station by other 
users thereof. 

"(2) For the purposes of this section, the 
term 'eligible candidate' means — 

■'(A) an eligible Senate candidate (as de- 
fined in section 301 of the Federal Election 
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)): and 

"(B) a candidate for State office who un- 
dertakes to abide by reasonable spending 
limits established under State law that the 
Federal Election Commission, under a regu- 
lation issued jointly by the Commission and 
the Federal Election Commission, certifies 
to the Commission are comparable to those 
established under title V of the Federal Elec- 
tion Campaign Act of 1971.". 

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, 
this amendment is somewhat a cousin 
of the amendment I have just discussed 
in that, again, it relates to the issue of 
relationship between the Federal Gov- 
ernment and our political colleagues at 
the State and local level. 

In this case, rather than asking for 
the States to take the initiative, such 
as in the development of the voter 
pamphlet in which the Federal Govem- 


June 7, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12099 


ment would be a participant, we are 
now dealing with an issue that is to- 
tally within the Federal Government's 
realm of responsibility and where we 
are extending ourselves to State and 
local governments, and that is access 
to television. 

As we know, our broadcast commu- 
nications are all licensed by the Fed- 
eral Government. The Federal Govern- 
ment has sole responsibility for their 
management and for their regulation. 

The current law is, so far as broad- 
cast media rates, that the charges 
made for the use of any broadcasting 
station by any person who is a legally 
qualified candidate for any public of- 
fice in connection with his campaign 
for nomination for election or election 
to such office shall not exceed — and 
then it states, under current law, for 
the 45 days before a primary or runoff 
election or the 60 days before a general 
election that the candidate will be 
charged the lowest until charge of the 
station for the same class and amount 
of time for the same period. That is ba- 
sically the current law. 

So it applies to all candidates to pub- 
lic office. It is not restricted to Federal 
candidates. It applies to both pri- 
maries, runoffs, and then to the gen- 
eral election, and it provides for the 
lowest unit rate. 

The managers' amendment that we 
are now considering makes several 
changes in that section, which is sec- 
tion 47 U.S.C. 315, paragraph (B). Those 
changes include, one, the nature of the 
television to which a candidate is enti- 
tled is changed from being what in tel- 
evision speech is called preemptable 
time — that it is, time that the station 
might, it it finds someone who is will- 
ing to pay a higher price, preempt the 
television ad — to nonpreemptable time. 
That is, once the candidate takes ad- 
vantage of this provision in the law 
and places an ad, that ad is not subject 
to being ousted by the station sub- 
stituting another higher paying com- 
mercial ad. 

As it relates to Senate candidates 
singularly within the bill as presently 
provided, there are two other provi- 
sions. One is that the charge that a sta- 
tion can make will now be 50 percent of 
that lowest nonpreemptable rate so 
that, if a station in Seattle, for in- 
stance, charged $1,000 for a 30-second 
spot, under this the charge for a quali- 
fied Senate candidate would be $500. 

And, second, there are provisions 
made which relate to other sections in 
the bill when a candidate has received 
communication vouchers because their 
opponent has not agreed to the spend- 
ing limits and, therefore, the candidate 
who did agree to spending limits is 
being placed on a level playing field. 
Provision is made that a candidate 
cannot accumulate this. That is, you 
cannot use your vouchers, if you re- 
ceive those, to also take advantage of 
the 50-percent rate charge. You have to 


use one or the other, if that is your al- 
ternative. 

Now, that is what the current law 
provides. What I have just stated is 
what is in the manager's amendment 
as it relates to current changes in the 
current law. That is the amendment 
that is at the desk. 

The amendment at the desk does one 
further thing, and that is it says, if a 
State has adopted a campaign reform 
bill which is the equivalent to the leg- 
islation that this bill would provide at 
the Federal level — and that equiva- 
lency will be determined jointly by the 
Federal Communications Commission 
and the Federal Election Commission. 
They will jointly determine whether 
States have met that equivalency test. 
But if they make such determination, 
then those candidates within that 
State who have agreed to the vol- 
untary spending limits would also have 
the benefit of this 50-percent 
nonpreemptable rate for their cam- 
paigns. 

The purpose of this. Madam Presi- 
dent, is clearly to encourage States to 
adopt campaign laws as we are about 
to adopt here, I hope. That is, laws that 
will restrict the influence of money in 
political campaigns. If what we want to 
do is to take this good idea from Wash- 
ington and encourage States beyond 
those States which today have already 
done so — and, at the present time, 
there are four States that have adopted 
laws that are essentially equivalent to 
what we are considering here today, 
and another half dozen States which 
have adopted campaign reform bills 
that approach what we are proposing 
at the Federal level — if it is our goal to 
encourage other States to limit the in- 
fluence of money in their political 
campaigns, one of the most effective 
contributions that the Federal Govern- 
ment can make to this end would be to 
recognize those States' efforts by al- 
lowing candidates within those quali- 
fied States who agreed to voluntarily 
accept the spending limits to get the 
same benefit of the reduced television 
costs that we are going to make avail- 
able to ourselves. 

If we do not do that. Madam Presi- 
dent, we are, one, not giving any rec- 
ognition to States that have adopted 
these types of reform measures that at- 
tempt to reduce the influence of 
money, as opposed to States that have 
continued to tolerate excessive 
amounts of money in campaigns; and 
we also have not given any encourage- 
ment to individual candidates to abide 
by those limits because under the law 
that will remain. All candidates, 
whether they qualify or do not qualify 
under State law, will still have the 
benefit of the same level of television 
charges, as well as radio charges. 

Madam President, that is the second 
amendment. Collectively, these two 
amendments have the following objec- 
tives: 


One, to help provide a complement to 
our efforts at reducing the cost of cam- 
paigning by making access to alter- 
native means available to political 
candidates to encourage political re- 
form at all levels of government — Fed- 
eral, State, and local — and to provide 
that the Federal Government will be 
giving leadership in terms of this na- 
tionwide effort. 

Madam President, I believe these are 
two important and appropriate com- 
plements to the legislation that is be- 
fore us today, and will contribute to a 
conclusion of a campaign finance bill 
that will begin to substitute better 
quality information, information 
which provides the public the knowl- 
edge that it seeks in order to be able to 
participate meaningfully and thought- 
fully in a democratic process, and to 
reduce the influences which to many 
have created the reality or the appear- 
ance of a corrupting aspect of an exces- 
sive amounts of money concentrated in 
too few hands who might use that in- 
fluence to gain special privileges with- 
in the political process. 

Madam President, it is my under- 
standing that these amendments will 
be voted on tomorrow morning and 
that there will be a brief period for dis- 
cussion prior to the vote tomorrow 
morning. 

I look forward to elaborating on my 
remarks at that time. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Chair recognizes the Senator from 
North Carolina. 


GEORGE MURPHY, 1902-92 

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I am 
13 months late in making the remarks 
I am about to make because a year or 
more ago, I was dealing with a group of 
fine cardiologists in North Carolina, to 
whom I shall always be grateful. There- 
fore, I missed some sad news about the 
death of a wonderful friend. I suppose 
it was assumed a year ago that I was 
aware that the former U.S. Senator. 
George Murphy, had died on May 3, 
1992. But I did not. I was not aware, and 
it was only recently that I learned 
about it. 

George Lloyd Murphy— I never knew 
he had a middle name — was 89 when he 
died of leukemia 13 months a^o. And 
what a guy he was. Madam President. I 
enjoyed George as*^ remarkably tal- 
ented movie star. I admired his unfail- 
ing decency and honor as a human 
being. I rejoiced in 1964 when he was 
elected to the U.S. Senate: Here is a 
man who understands that the miracle 
of America is the free enterprise sys- 
tem, and here is a principled man who 
will defend the fundamental principles 
of the American system. 

George Murphy did precisely that, 
without once yielding to political blan- 
dishments. 


12100 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


June 7, 1993 


June 7, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12101 


I recall how pleased and honored I 
was when George Murphy called me In 
North Carolina back in 1972 and volun- 
teered to help in my campaign that 
year for the Senate, and in subsequent 
campaigns. He came to North Carolina 
on many occasions to stand at my side. 
And one does not forget that, Madam 
President: and I shall never forget it. 

I regret that I was never privileged to 
serve in the Senate with George Mur- 
phy. In the late 1960's, George devel- 
oped throat cancer and left the Senate 
in 1971. Of course, I was elected in 1972. 
So we missed each other in terms of 
serving in the Senate together. 

Surgery left George with a very quiet 
voice, and he could not be heard across 
the Senate Chamber, let alone in the 
galleries. But George Murphy fixed 
that. He obtained a portable sound sys- 
tem and brought it to the Senate floor, 
put it on his Senate desk, and used it 
when he made a speech or engaged in 
debate. 

Not long afterwards, the U.S. Senate 
installed the sound system that we use 
today. In a moment. Madam President, 
I will ask unanimous consent that a 
comprehensive news account of George 
Murphy's career be printed in the 
Record. I say, parenthetically, that it 
is worth reading. 

But I shall delay that for the mo- 
ment, and say this about George Mur- 
phy: 

I have never had a more faithful 
friend than he. He was a special Amer- 
ican, a grandson of Irish immigrants, a 
man of remarkable talents, a man with 
an unfailing willingness to stand up for 
principles that deserve to survive. I be- 
lieve. Madam President, that George 
Murphy is somewhere up there, smiling 
at other angels, causing them to smile 
in return for his singing and dancing 
and general good humor. 

George Murphy made this world bet- 
ter because he was a part of it for 89 
years. 

Madam President, I now ask unani- 
mous consent that an article from the 
May 5, 1992, edition of the Palm Beach 
Daily News, headed "Senator, Actor 
George Murphy Dies at 89," be printed 
in the Record. 

There being no objection, the article 
was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

Senator, actor George Murphy Dies at 89 
(By Chris Romoser) 

George Lloyd Murphy, dancer, actor and 
the first movie star to become a U.S. sen- 
ator, died late Sunday night at his Palm 
Beach home. He was 89. 

Mr. Murphy, who had survived several 
bouts with throat cancer, died of leukemia. 

A funeral service will be held at 11 a.m. 
Friday at St. Edwards Catholic Church. 142 
N. County Road. Friends may call from 7 
p.m. to 9 p.m. Thursday at Quattlebaum- 
HoUeman-Burse Funeral Home. 1201 S. Olive 
Ave.. West Palm Beach. 

A song-and-dance man who preceded his 
protegre Ronald Reagan into acting, politics 
and as president of the Screen Actors Guild, 


Mr. Murphy was a gregarious, lifelong Demo- 
crat-turned-Republican who served one term 
as a California senator. 

Mr. Murphy's movie career featured a suc- 
cession of hits in the 1930s and '40s. He co- 
starred and was friends with many of Holly- 
wood's most notable actors and actresses, in- 
cluding Judy Garland. Jimmy Stewart. Bob 
Hope. Jane Wyman and Reagan, with whom 
he starred in the 1943 wartime film This is the 
Army. In that film. Mr. Murphy played Rea- 
gan's father in a role based on the life of 
composer Irving Berlin. 

Bob Hope, who was filming in Columbus. 
6hio, Monday, said he had lost one of his 
good friends with Mr. Murphy's death. 

"It's sad to hear because George Murphy 
was one of a kind. He was a real pro. whether 
it was dancing or acting." Hope said. "He 
had a great career and we're going to miss 
him." 

Hope said he has never forgotten that Mr. 
Murphy was the one who introduced Hope to 
his wife Dolores. 

"George and I were doing the play Roberta 
in New York, and one night George said, 
•You want to hear a pretty girl sing?' I said 
'sure,' so we went to the old Vogue club and 
there was Dolores singing her heart out. 
That was it for me. Dolores and I have been 
together ever since. George was the kind of 
guy who put people together." 

Singer Celia Lipton-Farris of Palm 
Beach— who honored Mr. Murphy at last 
year's Cancer Ball with a surprise reunion of 
old friends Buddy Ebsen. Donald O'Connor, 
Hope and several others — called Mr. Mur- 
phy's death the passing of an era. 

"I'm heartbroken. George was such a won- 
derful, wonderful man." Lipton-Farris said. 
"Now we've got nobody left of the good old 
start of MGM. George was one of the all-time 
great performers and entertainers. He could 
dance with the best of them. 

"George had triumphed over eight or nine 
throat operations. He was a strong man." 
Lipton-Farris said. "I used to see him riding 
his bicycle down the street every morning. 
Everybody knew him. Several presidents 
called him their close friend. Shirley Temple 
called him the senator.' There will be a lot 
of tearful eyes in Hollywood." 

Lesly Smith, the widow of Earl E.T. 
Smith, former U.S. ambassador to Cuba and 
a staunch Republican supporter who died in 
February 1991, said her husband and Mr. 
Murphy were old friends from their days to- 
gether at Yale. 

"George Murphy was a wonderful man who 
would have told you that he was an Amer- 
ican first and a conservative second." Smith 
said. "He and my husband were members of 
the Yale class of '26, and they remained life- 
long friends afterwards. 

"George and Earl and Ronald Reagan were 
all great friends. " Smith said. "They were 
united in their beliefs of a conservative lead- 
ership for this country. I remember George 
■ and Earl speaking in 1964 after then-Gov. 
Reagan had made a speech at the Republican 
Convention. They both said what a great 
president Ronald Reagan would make. 
George had that sort of foresight." 

Jesse Newman, president of the Palm 
Beach Chamber of Commerce, said he re- 
cently shared a memorable meal with Mr. 
Murphy. 

"About three weeks ago. George and I had 
lunch at The Colony Hotel after he had fin- 
ished some tests at the hospital." Newman 
said. "We discussed the wonderful things in 
life and the many, many things George had 
accomplished. He was uncomfortable, but it 
was a very good lunch for both of us. George 
was a truly great American." 


Mr. Murphy, the grandson of Irish immi- 
grants, was born .on July 4. 1902. in New 
Haven. Conn. His mother died when he was 
11. and his father died a year later. His older 
sister was left to raise the family. 

Mr. Murphy attended a preparatory school 
and held such jobs as semi-pro baseball play- 
er, factory worker and J12-a-week messenger 
on Wall Street before he entered Yale Uni- 
versity in 1923. Although he intended to em- 
bark on a career as an engineer, the lights of 
the stage drew Mr. Murphy away. 

In 1926, Mr. Murphy met a young woman 
named Juliet Henkel who was looking for a 
dance partner. "I thought anyone could 
dance." Mr. Murphy said years later. "A 
week later we were married." The marriage 
lasted nearly 50 years. 

The pair formed a dance team known as 
Johnston and Murphy. A week after their 
marriage, they got their first job. A nine- 
year dance career ensued, taking the couple 
on a whirlwind performance tour to London. 
Paris and across the United States. 

Dancing was Mr. Murphy's entree to 
Broadway and five New York shows, includ- 
ing the successes Hold Everything. Of Thee I 
Sing and Roberta, in which he co-starred with 
Fred MacMurray and Bob Hope. 

The lure of Hollywood beckoned Mr. Mur- 
phy in 1934. In an era when stars rarely leap- 
frogged from one studio to another, Mr. Mur- 
phy remained under contract to MGM stu- 
dios for 23 years. He appeared in 55 pictures, 
including such hits as Kid Millions (1934). Lit- 
tle Miss Broadway (1938) with Shirley Temple. 
For Me and My Gal (1942) with Judy Garland 
and Gene Kelly. Broadway Rhythm (1944) and 
Show Business (1944). 

During his tenure in Hollywood, Mr. Mur- 
phy founded the Screen Actors Guild and 
served as its president before the successive 
tenns of his friends Reagan and Robert 
Montgomery. Mr. Murphy also served as vice 
president of Desilu Studios and vice presi- 
dent of Technicolor Corp. Other posts in- 
cluded a stint as president of the National 
Football Foundation. 

Mr. Murphy's show business acumen pro- 
vided the background for a career twist in 
1952 when he was named director of enter- 
tainment for Dwight D. Eisenhower's first 
inauguration. A decade earlier. Murphy left 
the Democratic Party to become a Repub- 
lican after expressing his disgust with what 
he termed the excesses of President Franklin 
Roosevelt's New Deal. 

After reprising his role for Eisenhower's 
second inaugural in 1956. Mr. Murphy went to 
the hospital to have the first of a series of 
throat operations. Later in life, the cumu- 
lative effects of these operations left Mr. 
Murphy with a voice he said made him sound 
"like a soft Andy Devine." 

Mr. Murphy showed his political prowess 
as a delegate to the Republican National 
Convention in 1948. 1952. 1956 and 1960. In 
1953. he was California state Republican 
chairman. 

In 1964, Mr Murphy was elected to the U.S. 
Senate, defeating Democratic incumbent 
Pierre Salinger, former press secretary to 
President John F. Kennedy. Mr. Murphy was 
one of only two non-incumbent GOP senate 
candidates to overcome President Lyndon 
Johnson's Democratic landslide that year. 

During his term in office. Mr. Murphy 
served on several Senate committees, among 
them Labor and Public Welfare. Public 
Works and the Armed Services Committee. 

An avid supporter of a strong national de- 
fense, Mr. Murphy had no qualms about 
doing battle with those who opposed his 
stance on the military. He had a difference of 


opinion with several key military leaders, 
including former Secretary of Defense Rob- 
ert MacNamara, whom he once chastised as 
doing "more damage to our military status 
than all our military defeats in history." 

In 1967. his fellow Republican senators hon- 
ored Mr. Murphy by naming him chairman of 
the Republican Senatorial Campaign Com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Murphy was defeated In his 1970 re- 
election bid by John Tunney, the son of 
former heavyweight champion Gene Tunney. 

Mr. Murphy moved to the Palm Beach area 
in the early 1970s, first living in a Flagler 
Drive condominium in West Palm Beach, 
then a Worth Avenue apartment, and finally 
a home on Ridgeview Road. 

At the height of Mr. Murphy's public serv- 
ice career, his wife became an invalid. Julie 
Murphy died in 1973. Mr. Murphy married his 
second wife, Bette, in 1982. 

In recent years, Mr. Murphy was active as 
a business consultant in Washington. D.C., 
where he also founded and was director of 
American Cause, a bipartisan, conservative 
ixilitical education group dedicated to pre- 
serving the free enterprise system. 

Mr. Murphy was active in many commu- 
nity and social affairs in Palm Beach, in- 
cluding the Cancer Ball, the Girl Scout Gala 
and the Royal Poinciana Playhouse. He also 
spoke frequently to political and civic 
groups. 

Mr. Murphy received numerous awards and 
citations for his entertainment and public 
service endeavors, including an Academy 
Award in 1950 for his contributions to the 
motion picture industry: decorations by all 
the U.S. Armed Services: the Silver Buffalo, 
the Boy Scouts of America's highest na- 
tional honor; and the 1990 Palm Beach Cham- 
ber of Commerce Outstanding Citizenship 
Award. 

In addition to his wife Bette of Palm 
Beach. Mr. Murphy is survived by his son 
Dennis, his daughter Melissa and four grand- 
children, all of California. 

In lieu of flowers, contributiorfe may be 
made in Mr. Murphy's memory to the Wil- 
liam J. Herrington Fund for Leukemia Re- 
search. 1275 N.W. 12th Ave., Miami. Fla. 
33136. 

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I sug- 
gest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 
roll. 

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 
Ford). Without objection, it is so or- 
dered. 


MORNING BUSINESS 


REACTION TO MFN RENEWAL FOR 
CHINA 

Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, as my 
colleagues know. President Clinton has 
recently issued an executive order 
which extends most-favored-nation sta- 
tus to China unconditionally for 1 year 
and then conditions renewal for the fol- 
lowing year on progress in human 
rights. I would like to speak briefly on 
the intentions and the impact of this 
executive order. 


I would begin, Mr. President, by em- 
phasizing the great importance of the 
relationship between the United States 
and China. I have said, in this Chamber 
and elsewhere, that perhaps no bilat- 
eral relationship will be more crucial 
to the United States in the 21st cen- 
tury. 

I understand the decision of the 
President to issue this Executive order, 
and I have a detailed appreciation of 
the circumstances and factors which 
influenced this decision. For those who 
have reservations about condition- 
ality— and I am among them, Mr. 
President — it should be known for the 
record that the Clinton administration 
has taken this action only after very 
thorough and fair consideration, and 
after lengthy discussions with the Chi- 
nese. This is not an irresponsible ulti- 
matum. 

Nevertheless, I am mindful of the po- 
tentially unpleasant consequences that 
this decision may have. And I hope sin- 
cerely, Mr. President, the Chinese Gov- 
ernment will react in a temperate and 
balanced manner. I hope China will 
continue to engage the United States 
in dialog and in action. I expect that 
the Chinese Government will continue 
to abide by the nonproliferation agree- 
ments to which it is a party. And I 
hope that the progress we have seen 
this year on human rights — including, 
most recently, the release of another 
prominent political dissident — will 
continue unabated. 

We should remember that there are 
those in Congress who would prefer a 
stronger, more stringent, more imme- 
diate set of conditions. These Members 
believe, for instance, that the situation 
in Tibet, which has entered the news 
again recently, warrants a more vigor- 
ous and outraged response. 

There are also those who believe the 
Clinton Executive order is misguided. 
These Members believe that imposing 
conditions on MFN makes inappropri- 
ate use of a tool of limited intended 
power. 

At the very least, these different in- 
terpretations should signal to the Chi- 
nese that the administration has taken 
pains to strike a balanced and thought- 
ful approach to this issue. 

I know, Mr. President, that it! would 
be unreasonable to expect the Chinese 
Government to be pleased with this de- 
cision. It is not, however, unreasonable 
to expect the Chinese Government to 
continue to work cooperatively to 
strengthen the basis of the United 
States-China relationship. 

It has been, and ought to remain, the 
goal of the United States to engage 
China, not isolate it. But it is also the 
responsibility of the United States to 
articulate its principles in its policy. 
The Executive order issued recently 
was a good-faith effort to marry our in- 
terests and our ideals. 

We cannot say with certainty wheth- 
er today's action will cause a downturn 


in our relationship with China. I have 
no illusions about that possibility. In- 
deed, I have some serious concerns in 
that regard. But Mr. President, let us 
simply remember that this relationship 
is as important to China as it is to 
America. And let us hope that in the 
coming year both the Clinton adminis- 
tration and the leaders in Beijing can 
move this relationship beyond divisive 
debates over MFN and into a more ma- 
ture and well-developed stage worthy 
of both our nations. 


S. 1011- 


-MISLEADING DIRECT MAIL 
SOLICITATIONS 

Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I rise 
today to commend my friend. Senator 
David Pryor, on his effort to stop the 
use of misleading and deceptive direct- 
mail solicitations aimed at vulnerable 
senior citizens, and to announce my co- 
sponsorship of the legislation he has 
introduced, S. 1011, to address this 
problem. 

Mr. President, for decades now, I 
have heard tales of fly-by-night compa- 
nies and peddlers of everything from 
worthless insurance policies to shoddy 
home improvements preying upon our 
elderly families, friends, and neighbors. 
Unfortunately, in recent years, the use 
of modem telemarketing and direct- 
mail techniques has made this ugly 
practice more insidiousland, I'm afraid, 
more commonplace. | 

The particular schenl^ and tactics 
are many, and I believe^hat over the 
years I have heard about most of them 
from my Tennessee constituents. Some 
direct-mail firms offer services — for a 
fee — which are provided by the Social 
Security Administration free of charge. 
Many of these same organizations 
imply a direct link with the Federal 
Government which does not actually 
exist. Some go so far as to use official 
symbols, emblems, or agency names to 
suggest an official connection with the 
Social Security Administration or 
other Federal agency. Other organiza- 
tions provide false, alarming claims of 
the imminent demise of the Social Se- 
curity or Medicare programs. And, of 
course, in many cases, most of the 
money raised by these outfits ulti- 
mately ends up in their sponsors" pock- 
ets — and is not used to advocate for po- 
sitions important to older Americans. 

Years ago, I received complaints 
from Tennessee seniors about the 
mailings of a particular group solicit- 
ing money to use to lobby me. I wrote 
that organization, and asked them to 
stop the mailings. I told the group that 
my constituents did not have to pay 
anyone 510 to tell me what is on their 
mind. And I assured my constituents 
that my office is only a phone call or 
letter away, and their opinions are 
heard. I am pleased that the Congress— 
again with the leadership of Senator 
David Pryor — moved swiftly to pass 
legislation which has curbed the decep- 


12102 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


June 7, 1993 


tive mailing abuses employed by that 
particular organization. 

But Mr. President, as Senator PRYOR, 
the distinguished chairman of the Sen- 
ate Special Committee on Aging, has 
said, the problem has not diminished. 
Today there are different organiza- 
tions, using different, but equally con- 
temptible tactics. 

In recent months. I have received on 
a routine basis $5 and $10 checks from 
older folks who are living meagerly on 
only a small monthly Social Security 
check — with a note asking me to please 
not cut their benefits or let Social Se- 
curity go bankrupt. Their pleas — and I 
received one just this week— are 
prompted by false and misleading di- 
rect-mail solicitations from so-called 
senior advocacy organizations. 

The Congress simply must act to stop 
those who are scaring, abusing, and de- 
liberately deceiving millions of our fel- 
low Americans for personal profit. The 
senator from Arkansas' legislation will 
go a long way toward achieving that 
important goal. 

The legislation, which I am proud to 
cosponsor, would greatly increase the 
penalties on abusive mailers. Specifi- 
cally, the bill would eliminate the cur- 
rent $100,000 annual limit on penalties 
for individuals or organizations which 
misuse the words, letters, symbols, or 
emblems of Federal agencies, and 
would consider each individual piece of 
improper mail to be a separate viola- 
tion. The measure also broadens the 
definition of deceptive mailing to pro- 
hibit the use of an agency name or 
symbol in a manner that could be rea- 
sonably interpreted or construed as 
conveying a relationship with that par- 
ticular agency. 

Mr. President, I understand that Sen- 
ator Pryor is developing additional 
legislation which would require mail- 
ers to disclose who they are and where 
the money they raise will go. It will 
also give postal inspectors added abili- 
ties to fight fraud. I look forward to 
supporting this measure when it is in- 
troduced in the coming weeks. 

I would like to thank my friend from 
Arkansas and commend him once again 
for his leadership on this issue. I urge 
my colleagues to consider this legisla- 
tion, and join us in our effort to pro- 
tect American's senior citizens. 


H.R. 1313. THE NATIONAL COOPER- 
ATIVE PRODUCTION AMEND- 
MENTS OF 1993 

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President. I 
add my support to H.R. 1313, the Na- 
tional Cooperative Production Amend- 
ments of 1993, which passed imme- 
diately prior to the recess. H.R. 1313 is 
virtually identical to S. 574, which I co- 
sponsored. This legislation amends the 
National Cooperative Research Act of 
1984 by extending its provisions to in- 
clude manufacturing as well as re- 
search and development. The 1984 act 


received strong bipartisan support, and 
I am pleased that the same has been 
true for H.R. 1313. 

Mr. President, the 1984 act has been 
very successful. I am told that it has 
led to the filing of more than 300 re- 
search and development joint ventures. 
This number undoubtedly includes 
some joint ventures which would not 
have occurred without the act. Mr. 
President, when we enacted the 1984 
act. that is exactly what we wanted to 
happen. It is now time for these same 
benefits to apply to joint production 
through expansion of the 1984 act. 

Competition in worldwide markets is 
strong and is getting stronger every 
year. If American firms are to be suc- 
cessful international competitors, they 
cannot afford to settle for less than the 
most advanced means of research, de- 
velopment, and manufacturing. This 
requires substantial investment in 
state-of-the-art facilities and other 
technological know-how. Mr. Presi- 
dent, there is no question that such in- 
vestment is expensive. The amend- 
ments in H.R. 1313, by encouraging pro- 
duction joint ventures, should help 
ease this investment burden, and will 
enable American businesses to respond 
more effectively to the competitive 
challenges they face in international 
markets. Production joint ventures 
should provide just the answer for 
firms which cannot make the needed 
investments in new production tech- 
nology. This is especially true for firms 
that do not want to merge their entire 
operations to achieve the benefits such 
ventures provide. 

The National Cooperative Research 
Act of 1984 was the first step in ad- 
dressing these competitive concerns. It 
has two simple features which H.R. 1313 
extends to production joint ventures. 
First, it guarantees that covered joint 
ventures, if they are ever called into 
question under the antitrust laws, will 
be analyzed under the rule of reason so 
that the potential competitive benefits 
of such ventures will be evaluated. Sec- 
ond, antitrust liability with respect to 
a venture disclosed to the Government 
is limited to actual damages rather 
than treble damages. It is appropriate 
for these benefits to be extended to 
production joint ventures. 

Mr. President, one last point should 
be made. This bill, like the 1984 act it 
amends, does not provide an antitrust 
immunity. It only clarifies that these 
production joint ventures, if chal- 
lenged under the antitrust laws, are 
subject to rule of reason treatment, 
and will be subject to actual, rather 
than treble damages. Nor does the bill 
weaken antitrust enforcement, since 
the joint venture must be disclosed to 
the antitrust enforcement agencies and 
placed in the public record at the time 
of formation. This disclosure require- 
ment would permit earlier enforce- 
ment, including injunctive relief, if 
necessary to prevent an anticompeti- 


tive venture. I think these are vital 
points to remember, especially since it 
has been erroneously stated that this 
legislation creates an antitrust immu- 
nity. 

As I noted at. the outset, Mr. Presi- 
dent, the 1984 act received strong bipar- 
tisan support. I am pleased that this 
bill also has been the product of much 
bipartisan cooperation which has con- 
tinued through passage of this legisla- 
tion. 


GENOCIDE IN KASHMIR 

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the free 
world will continue, at its own peril, to 
ignore the plight of the millions of peo- 
ple in Kashmir, where the forces of 
India are engaged in what amounts to 
genocide. 

There is an exponential growth in 
ethnic conflict throughout the world; 
it is a sad truth that the deaths of 
thousands because of their religion, 
color, or tribe no longer are suffi- 
ciently newsworthy for the front pages 
of our Nation's newspapers. 

There is one conflict, however, that 
even the most cynical of foreign pol- 
icymakers — and they seem to be plenti- 
ful in this administration — cannot ig- 
nore, and that is in Kashmir. Human 
rights monitors recently made an unof- 
ficial trip to Kashmir, and have now 
disclosed, in a May 25 Washington Post 
article, some of the more horrifying de- 
tails of their findings. 

Indian troops have crushed Kashmiri 
rebels and innocents alike; they argue 
that theirs is an appropriate response 
to Pakistani-sponsored terrorism. The 
rest of the world must respond that 
this kind of wholesale brutality is not 
the behavior of a civilized state, par- 
ticularly one that enjoys the self- 
anointed label, "world's largest democ- 
racy." 

Indian and Pakistan have gone to 
war twice over Kashmir, it could hap- 
pen again. And this time, both coun- 
tries will have nuclear weapons. The 
world must pay attention. 

Mr. President, I ask that the text of 
the May 25 Washington Post article be 
printed in the Record at the conclu- 
sion of my remarks. 

There being no objection, the article 
was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

Once P.^radise. Now Hell 

(By James A. Goldston and Patricia 

Gossman) 

Soldiers set fire to houses and shoot un- 
armed residents trying to escape. Detainees 
are tortured or shot dead in the night; civil- 
ians are raped and murdered. This is Kash- 
mir, where Indian troops are locked in con- 
flict with Muslim militants demanding inde- 
pendence or accession to Pakistan. And 
while it seems just another messy civil war. 
this is one conflict where the international 
community can exert significant pressure on 
all parties. As the carnage in Bosnia has 
made chillingly clear, the longer the world 
ducks such a role, the greater the cost. With 


June 7, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12103 


Indo-Pakistan relations dangerously 
strained over Kashmir. Western leaders must 
use the diplomatic and economic tolls at 
hand to break a cycle of violence that 
threatens regional stability and raises the 
specter of nuclear confrontation. 

Twice since the subcontinent's partition in 
1947. India and Pakistan have gone to war 
over Kashmir. India's only Muslim-majority 
state, which it has governed through repres- 
sion, electoral fraud and petty partisan poli- 
tics. Shut out of the political process. Kash- 
miri youths have taken to arms, forming 
guerrilla groups that have attracted Paki- 
stan's support. When these groups stepped up 
attacks on the government in 1989, India re- 
sponded with an iron fist, and ever since, 
government forces in Kashmir have behaved 
like an occupation army. As one Kashmiri 
put it. "Kashmir used to be paradise on 
Earth. Now it is hell." 

Broad swaths of Srinagra. Kashmir's cap- 
ital, have been reduced to rubble, burned last 
month by Indian soldiers. Residents who 
tried to escape the flames were fired on by 
security forces, who first bolted the doors of 
several buildings. Other civilians tried to 
cross the river to safety. At least four died 
when soldiers fired at a boat crowed with 
people fleeing the flames. It was the latest of- 
many such incidents. 

From his hospital bed, Masrood, a chem- 
istry student, described being seized from a 
municipal bus on April 8 by border security 
force troops, then taken to an interrogation 
center where he was beaten and burned with 
electric wires applied to his feet, testicles 
and upper chest. Told he would be "released 
forever." Masrood was then carried to a field 
where he was shot in the neck, chest and legs 
and left for dead. Such a survival story is 
rare; summary executions are the norm in 
Kashmir. 

Official disregard for the rule of law is 
epitomized in the way Kashmiri policemen 
are viewed with suspicion by the security 
forces, who are mostly non-Muslims brought 
in from other states. During the last week in 
April. Indian paramilitary troops stormed 
the central office of the local police, then 
disarmed and interrogated hundreds of offi- 
cers who had been protesting the death of 
one of their colleagues in army custody. 

The recent upsurge in killings and other 
abuses is testament to the failure of the In- 
dian government's attempt to resolve the 
Kashmir crisis through force. The brutality 
has only succeeded in alienating the civilian 
population. To date, Indian officials, though 
well aware of the abuses, have taken few 
steps to end them. Efforts to restart a politi- 
cal process are being sabotaged by hard-lin- 
ers in the government and intelligence agen- 
cies determined to achieve military victory 
despite the staggering civilian cost. Still, it 
is within India's power to address the root 
causes of the insurgency. As a prominent 
lawyer in Srinagar put it. the Kashmir re- 
volt "is not a challenge to Indian might. It 
is a test of Indian statesmanship." 

Although final resolution of the Kashmir 
question may take years, action is needed 
now to help India meet that test and prevent 
a regional human rights disaster from inten- 
sifying into a wider war. In the past few 
weeks, the United States has appropriately 
stepped up pressure on Pakistan to end its 
arming of Kashmiri rebels, even going so far 
as to publicly threaten to put Pakistan on 
its terrorist list. Regrettably, public pres- 
sure on India to end its abusive policy in 
Kashmir has been lacking. Having recently 
upgraded its military contacts with India, 
the United States has leverage it can use. 


Until India takes steps to end the abuses, in- 
cluding permitting access for international 
humanitarian organizations and rigorously 
prosecuting security forces responsible for 
abuses, the United States should suspend all 
military assistance and military sales to 
India. And the United States should urge its 
allies to do the same. 

To date. United Nations resolutions con- 
demning Indian abuses in Kashmir have been 
advanced by Pakistan, a poor sponsor given 
its role In abuses by militant groups. But 
that is no reason for the international com- 
munity to ignore the appalling situation in 
Kashmir. The United States and its allies 
should call on India to cooperate with the 
U.N.s permanent human rights working 
groups, and if India continues to obstruct 
U.N. activity, the United States and its al- 
lies should consider a resolution appointing 
a special rapporteur on Kashmir. 

Finally, the leverage of the multilateral 
lending institutions, including the World 
Bank, should be brought to bear. When In- 
dia's major bilateral and multilateral donors 
meet this summer, they should not hesitate 
to speak out against the daily horrors in 
Kashmir. Above all, they must press for ac- 
cess for the International Committee of the 
Red Cross, a neutral humanitarian body that 
operates confidentially to provide medical 
care and prevent abuse of detainees. By re- 
fusing the assistance of the ICRC and other 
international organizations, the Indian gov- 
ernment seems to be admitting that it is try- 
ing to hide a very ugly secret in Kashmir. 

(James A. Goldston. an attorney, recently 
traveled to Kashmir for Asia Watch, a divi- 
sion of Human Rights Watch. Patricia 
Gossman is a research associate for Asia 
Watch.) 


received a message from the House of 
Representatives announcing that the 
Speaker has signed the following en- 
rolled bills and joint resolutions: 

S. 1. An act to amend the Public Health 
Service Act to revise and extend the pro- 
grams of the National Institutes of Health, 
and for other purposes. 

H.R. 1313. An act to amend the National 
Research Act of 1984 with respect to joint 
ventures entered into for the purpose of pro- 
ducing a product, process, or service. 

H.R. 2128. An act to amend the Immigra- 
tion and Nationality Act to authorize appro- 
priations for refugee assistance for fiscal 
years 1993 and 1994. 

H..I. Res. 78. Joint resolution designating 
the weeks beginning May 23. 1993, and May 
15. 1994. as "Emergency Medical Services 
Week." 

H.J. Res. 135. Joint resolution designating 
the months of May 1993 and May 1994 as "Na- 
tional Trauma Awareness Month." 

Under the authority of the order of 
the Senate of January 5, 1993, the Sec- 
retary of the Senate, on June 7, 1993. 
during the adjournment of the Senate, 
received a message from the House of 
Representatives announcing that the 
House has passed the following bill in 
which it requests the concurrence of 
the Senate: 

H.R. 2264. An act to provide for the rec- 
onciliation pursuant to section 7 of the con- 
current resolution on the budget for fiscal 
year 1994. 


MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT 
RECEIVED DURING ADJOURNMENT 

Under the authority of the order of 
the Senate of January 5. 1993, the Sec- 
retary of the Senate on June 1, 1993, re- 
ceived a message from the President of 
the United States submitting a nomi- 
nation, which was referred to the Com- 
mittee on Foreign Relations. 

The nomination received on June 1, 
1993, is shown in today's Record at the 
end of the Senate proceedings. 


ENROLLED BILLS PRESENTED 

The Secretary of the Senate reported 
that on today, June 1, 1993, he pre- 
sented to the President of the United 
States the following enrolled bill; 

S. 1. An act to amend the Public Health 
Service Act to revise and extend the pro- 
grams of the National Institutes of Health, 
and for other purposes. 


MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT 

Messages from the President of the 
United States were communicated to 
the Senate by Mr. Thomas, one of his 
secretaries. 


EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED 

As in executive session the Presiding 
Officer laid before the Senate messages 
from the President of the United 
States submitting sundry nominations 
and a withdrawal which were referred 
to the appropriate committees. 


MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE 
RECEIVED DURING ADJOURNMENT 

Under the authority of the order of 
the Senate of January 5, 1993. the Sec- 
retary of the Senate, on June 1. 1993. 
during the adjournment of the Senate, 


EXECUTIVE AND OTHER 
COMMUNICATIONS 

The following communications were 
laid before the Senate, together with 
accompanying papers, reports, and doc- 
uments, which were referred as indi- 
cated: 

EC-872. A communication from the Chair- 
man of the Defense Base Closure and Re- 
alignment Commission, transmitting, pursu- 
ant to law, certified materials of the Com- 
mission: to the Committee on Armed Serv- 
ices. 

EG-873. A communication from the Chair- 
man of the Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to 
law. a report relative to the retail fees and 
services of depository institutions: to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs. 

EC-874. A communication from the Acting 
Chairman of the Council of the District of 
Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law. a 
copy of DC. Act 10-26. -adopted by the Coun- 
cil on May 4, 1993; to the Committee on Gov- 
ernmental Affairs. 

EC-875. A communication from the Acting 
Chairman of the Council of the District of 
Columbia, transmittipg, pursuant to law. a 
copy of D.C. Act 10-27. adopted by the Coun- 


12104 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


June 7, 1993 


cil on May 4. 1993: to the Committee on Gov- 
emment&l Affairs. 

EC-876. A communication from the Acting 
Chairman of the Council of the District of 
Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law. a 
copy of D.C. Act 10-28, adopted by the Coun- 
cil on May 4. 1993; to the Committee on Gov- 
ernmental Affairs. 

EC-877. A communication from the Acting 
Chairman of the Council of the District of 
Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law. a 
copy of DC. Act 10-30. adopted by the Coun- 
cil on May 4. 1993; to the Committee on Gov- 
ernmental Affairs. 

EC-878. A communication from the Acting 
Chairman of the Council of the District of 
Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law. a 
copy of D.C. Act 10-31. adopted by the Coun- 
cil on May 4, 1993; to the Committee on Gov- 
ernmental Affairs. 

EC-879. A communication from the Acting 
Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trad- 
ing Commission, transmitting, pursuant to 
law, a report on intermarket coordination; 
to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry. 


REPORTS OF COMMITTEES 

The following reports of committees 
were submitted: 

By Mr. BIDEN, from the Committee on the 
Judiciary, with an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute: 

S. 574. A bill to amend the National Coop- 
erative Research Act of 1984 with respect to 
joint ventures entered into for the purpose of 
producing a product, process, or service 
(Rept. No. 103-51). 


INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND 
JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

The following bills and joint resolu- 
tions were introduced, read the first 
and second time by unanimous con- 
sent, and referred as indicated: 
By Mr. WARNER: 

S. 1075. A bill to designate the Federal 
building in Fredericksburg. "Virginia, as the 
"Samuel E. Perry Postal Building", and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Govern- 
mental Affairs. 

By Mr. PELL (by request): 

S. 1076. A bill to provide for the implemen- 
tation of special debt relief for the poorest, 
most heavily-indebted countries, in the mul- 
tilateral context of the Paris Club, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations. 

S. 1077. A bill to amend the Arms Control 
and Disarmament Act to authorize appro- 
priations for fiscal years 1994 and 1995; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations. 

By Mr. JOHNSTON (for himself and 
Mr. Breaux): 

S. 1078. A bill to confirm the Federal rela- 
tionship with the Jena Band of Choctaw In- 
dians of Louisiana; to the Committee on In- 
dian Affairs. 


STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED 
BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

By Mr. WARNER: 
S. 1075. A bill to designate the Fed- 
eral building on Fredericksburg, VA, as 
the "Samuel E. Perry Postal Build- 
ing," and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs. 


SAMUEL E. PERRY POSTAL BUILDLNG ACT OF 1993 

• Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am 
proud to rise today to introduce legis- 
lation to designate the Federal build- 
ing located at 600 Princess Anne Street 
in Fredericksburg, VA, as the Samuel 
E. Perry Postal Building. 

Fredericksburg lost an exceptional 
and well-loved and respected citizen 
last August when Sam Perry passed 
away at the age of 87. Mr. Perry served 
in the U.S. Postal Service for 42 years, 
retiring a superintendent of mails in 
1961. In addition, he served on the city 
council for 37 years choosing to step 
down in 1982 rather than seek a 10th 
term. 

Mr. Perry demonstrated his strong 
work ethic and volunteer spirit 
through his work with the Fredericks- 
burg Rescue Squad. He was a member 
of the volunteer fire department for 
over 70 years, serving as its president 
for more than three decades. Mr. Perry 
devoted more than 40 hours a week to 
the rescue squad, saving countless lives 
and delivering more than 50 babies. 

One could not begin to count the 
number of lives which Samuel Perry 
aided during his life. Fredericksburg 
benefited greatly by having such an 
outstanding citizen and friend as Sam- 
uel Perry. I believe it is only fitting 
that the city's post office be renamed 
in his honor. 

Mr. President, I request that a* copy 
of Mr. Perry's obituary printed in the 
Fredericksburg paper be placed in the 
Record at this point. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 
Beloved Rescue Worker. Counciijwan Dies 

Fredericksburg's good Samaritan. Samuel 
E. Perry Sr.. died early this morning in a 
Richmond hospital. He was 87. 

Perry, known for his big bow ties and his 
big heart, had undergone minor surgery yes- 
terday at Healthsouth Medical Center in 
Richmond. 

According to friends and colleagues at the 
Fredericksburg Rescue Squad, he entered the 
hospital Monday to have bone spurs removed 
from his spine. He suffered a heart attack 
while in recovery this morning. 

Perry, a former City Council member, was 
considered by many to be a cornerstone of 
the community. 

Mayor Lawrence A. Davies said flags at 
City Hall will fly at half-staff today in rec- 
ognition of Perry's accomplishments and 
contributions to the city. 

"We certainly feel a great sense of loss." 
the mayor said. "Sam was a man who really 
contributed far and above to the people of 
this community. This community is a better 
place because of him. He gave so much of 
himself to everyone." 

W. Sidney Armstrong, who served with 
Perry on the council for many years, said 
the community will miss such a tireless vol- 
unteer. "There is hardly a family in this 
area that has not been helped by Sam Perry 
in some way." 

This morning, black bunting was draped 
across the front door of the rescue squad 
building on William Street where Perry 
spent many an hour. 

Squadmembers wept as they talked of him. 
"Everybody in town knew him and loved 


him." said Rita Smith, a sergeant with the 
.squad. "Sam was everybody's friend." 

As recently as last week. Perry was hard at 
work for the rescue squad — just as he has 
been for half a century. 

Perry joined the squad in 1942, shortly 
after it was organized, and was undeniably 
its most active member. Until last year, he 
ran more than 1,580 calls annually — more 
than entire squads in some communities. 

Through the years. Perry devoted more 
than 40 hours a week to the squad and was 
often the first person on the scene. He saved 
countless lives and, by his estimation, deliv- 
ered more than 50 babies. 

"I know of no one else who I would rather 
answer calls with than Sam," squad member 
Aubrey Meredith said this morning. "I will 
miss him." 

Although Perry stopped responding to calls 
last year, he remained busy with the squad 
as its secretary, a position he held for nearly 
30 years. 

His survivors include his wife. Elsie S. 
Perry, with whom he celebrated his 52nd an- 
niversary earlier this year, and two children. 
Samuel E. Perry Jr. and Caroline Aydlotte. 

Mullins & Thompson Funeral Service Is 
handling arrangements, which were incom- 
plete this morning. 

"This town isn't prepared for the amount 
of people that will attend his funeral." squad 
member Jack Long said this morning. 

Perry was greeted by a chorus of "Hello. 
Sam" nearly everywhere he went. He was re- 
membered this morning for his kindness, his 
sense of humor and his repertoire of corny 
jokes. 

"We knew how to make people laugh and 
feel good." squad member Mildred Droste 
said. "We always had such a good time run- 
ning squad calls together." 

Perry's community service wasn't limited 
to the rescue squad. 

He served 37 years on the council, choosing 
to step down in 1982 rather than seek a 20th 
term. He was called back to duty briefly in 
1984 to fill the unexpired term of another 
councilman. 

The appointment gave Perry a chance to 
work in the old post office building, which he 
had lobbied city officials to convert into the 
new home for the city government. 

Perry, in fact, was no stranger to the post 
office building. He retired from the U.S. 
Postal Service in 1961 after a 42-year career. 
At the time of his departure, he was super- 
intendent of mails. 

For more than 70 years. Perry was a mem- 
ber of Fredericksburg Baptist Church. He 
was a life deacon at the church and had 
served several decades as Sunday school su- 
perintendent. He was still teaching class as 
recently as last week. 

Debi McGhee, a rescue squad member who 
attended the church with Perry, said "a lot 
of the time it would be hard to tell Sam 
apart from the kids. He would be right down 
there on the floor with them playing. My 
kids always looked forward to seeing him, 
especially on Christmas when he wore his 
special bow tie that would light up.". 

Perry was also a member of the Fred- 
ericksburg' Volunteer Fire Department for 
more than 70 years and was its president for 
more than three decades. 

The city's new fire station on Altoona 
Drive bears his name. Officials joked that 
the building should have been shaped like a 
giant bow tie. 

Perry won dozens of awards for community 
service through the years. The rescue squad, 
in fact, now calls its top honor the Samuel 
E. Perry Outstanding Member Award. 


June 7, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12105 


Four years ago. he received statewide rec- 
ognition as winner of the Governor's Award 
for Volunteering Excellence. 

"You can't live in this world by yourself," 
Perry said. "You try to help out when you 
can."* 


By Mr. PELL (by request): 
S. 1076. A bill to provide for the im- 
plementation of special debt relief for 
the poorest, most heavily indebted 
countries, in the multilateral context 
of the Paris Club, and for other pur- 
poses; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations. 

SPECLAL DEBT RELIEF FOR THE POOREST ACT OF 

1993 

• Mr. PELL. Mr. President, by request, 
I introduce for appropriate reference a 
bill to provide for the implementation 
of special debt relief for the poorest, 
most heavily debt-ridden countries, in 
the multilateral context of the Paris 
Club, and for other purposes. 

This proposed legislation has been re- 
quested by the Department of the 
Treasury, and I am introducing it in 
order that there may be a specific bill 
to which Members of the Senate and 
the public may direct their attention 
and comments. 

I reserve my right to support or op- 
pose this bill, as well as any suggested 
amendments to it, when the matter is 
considered by the Committee on For- 
eign Relations. 

I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
be printed in the Record at this point, 
together with the letter from the Act- 
ing General Counsel of the Department 
of the Treasury, which was received on 
May 24, 1993. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

S. 1076 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the "Special Debt 
Relief for the Poorest Act of 1993." 

SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

To facilitate the reduction of the 
nonconcessional debt owed to the United 
States by the poorest, most heavily indebted 
countries, in the multilateral context of the 
Paris Club, and to promote economic reform 
and stability that will lead to improvement 
in the lives of the people of these countries. 

SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF CERTAIN DEBT. 

(a) Authority To Reduce Dhbt.— 

(1) Authority.— Notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, the President may re- 
duce amounts of principal and interest owed 
to the United States, or any agency of the 
United States, by any eligible country as a 
result of^ 

(A) housing guarantees made pursuant to 
title III of chapter 2, part I of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961: or 

(B) loans or guarantees made pursuant to 
the Arms Export Control Act; or 

(C) loans or guarantees made pursuant to 
the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945. 

(2) APPROPRIATIONS requirement.— The au- 
thority provided by this section may be exer- 
cised only in such amounts or to such extent 


as is provided in advance by appropriations 
Acts. 

(3) Certain PROHiBmoNS inapplicable —A 
reduction of debt pursuant to this section 
shall not be considered assistance for pur- 
poses of any provisions of law limiting as- 
sistance to a country. 

(b) Implementation of Debt Reduction.— 
The authority provided by this section may 
be exercised only to implement multilateral 
official debt relief ad referendum agreements 
commonly referred to as "Paris Club Agreed 
Minutes." 

(c) ELiGiBiLrrv FOR Debt Reduction. — (l) 
Eligible countries.— The authority pro- 
vided by this section may be exercised only 
with respect to countries with heavy debt 
burdens that are eligible to borrow from the 
International Development Association, but 
not from the International Bank for Recon- 
struction and Development, conmionly re- 
ferred to as "IDA-only" countries. 

(2) Eligibility determinations.— Consist- 
ent with subsection (c)(1), the President 
shall determine whether a country is eligible 
to receive benefits under this section. 

Department of the Treasury, 

Washington. DC, May 20, 1993. 
Hon. AL Gore, 

President of the Senate, U.S. Senate. Washing- 
ton. DC. 
Dear Mr. President: I am pleased to 
transmit herewith a draft bill, "To provide 
for the implementation of special debt relief 
for the poorest, most heavily-indebted coun- 
tries, in the multilateral context of the Paris 
Club, and for other purposes." We urge 
prompt consideration of this proposal. 

This legislation would enable the United 
States to join the rest of the international 
community in reducing the non-concessional 
debts of the poorest countries, particularly 
those in Sub-Saharan Africa. The non- 
concessional debts that would be reduced 
under this initiative include Export-Import 
Bank debt, military (DSAA) debt, and AID 
housing guarantees and credits. 

The authority to reduce the debts of the 
poorest would be implemented as part of 
multilateral debt reduction efforts in the 
Paris Club. This debt reduction would be un- 
dertaken in concert with the other Paris 
Club creditors to ensure that debtor coun- 
tries are implementing economic reform pro- 
grams with the International Monetary 
Fund. 

Appropriations would be required to imple- 
ment the debt reduction program. The Ad- 
ministration will request $7 million annually 
for fiscal years 1994-1996. for a total of $21 
million, to support this debt and debt service 
reduction program. 

During fiscal years 1994 and 1995. imple- 
mentation of this legislation could benefit 18 
of the poorest countries, most in Sub-Saha- 
'ran Africa. Appropriations for fiscal years 
1994 and 1995. totalling $14 million, would be 
leveraged into $228 million in debt reduction 
for this group. This would be a very efficient 
use of budget resources, with a debt reduc- 
tion to budget authority ratio of about 17 
to 1. 

It would be appreciated if you would lay 
the draft bill before the Senate. An identical 
draft bill has been transmitted to the Speak- 
er of the House of RepresenUtives. 

The Office of Management and Budget has 
advised that there is no objection to trans- 
mittal of this draft bill to the Congress and 
that enactment would be in accord with the 
Administration's program. 
Sincerely. 

Dennis I. Foreman. 
Acting General Counsel.* 


By Mr. PELL (by request): 

S. 1077. A bill to amend the Arms 
Control and Disarmament Act to au- 
thorize appropriations for fiscal years 
1994 and 1995; to the Committee on For- 
eign Relations. 

arms control and disarmament act 
appropriations authorization act 
• Mr. PELL. Mr. President, by request, 
I introduce for appropriate reference a 
bill to amend the Arms Control and 
Disarmament Act to authorize appro- 
priations for fiscal years 1994 and 1995. 

This proposed legislation has been re- 
quested by the U.S. Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency, and I am intro- 
ducing it in order that there may be a 
specific bill to which Members of the 
Senate and the public may direct their 
attention and comments. 

I reserve my right to support or op- 
pose this bill, as well as any suggested 
amendments to it, when the matter is 
considered by the Committee on For- 
eign Relations. 

I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
be printed in the Record at this point, 
together with the letter from the Act- 
ing Director of the U.S. Arms Control 
and Disarmament Agency, which was 
received on May 25, 1993. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
RECORD, as follows: 

S. 1077 

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of 
Representatives of the United States of America 
m Congress assembled. That Section 49(a)(1) 
(22 use. 2589(a)(1)) is amended to read as 
follows: 

"(1) $62,500,000 for fiscal year 1994, and such 
sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
1995; and". 

U.S. Arms Control 
AND Disarmament agency. 

Washington. May 25. 1993. 
Hon. Al Gore. 
President. U.S. Senate. 

Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is a draft 
bill to authorize appropriations of funds for 
the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency (ACDA) for fiscal years 1994 and 1995. 
As described in the budget proposal provided 
to you previously under separate cover. 
ACDA needs the authority to spend appro- 
priated funds totalling $62,500,000 for fiscal 
year 1994. and such sums as may be necessary 
for fiscal year 1995. The requested authority 
would provide for arms control negotiations 
and implementation at an increased level of 
activity over that expected during fiscal 
year 1993. 

In particular. ACDAs 1994 incremental re- 
quest is to prepare and provide for the imple- 
mentation of the Chemical Weapon Conven- 
tion (CWC), which was signed on January 13, 
1993. Related costs include the U.S. contribu- 
tion to the CWC Preparatory Commission 
(established in The Hague as of February 8, 
1993) and support costs for the U.S. delega- 
tion to the Preparatory Commission. 

However, as you may be aware, the Execu- 
tive Branch is now engaged in a review of 
ACDAs future and how best to restructure 
the Agency's work. We are forwarding this 
draft bill without prejudice to the outcome 
of that review. 

The Office of Management and Budget has 
advised that there is no objection to the 


12106 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


June 7, 1993 


presentation of this proposal to the Consrress 
and that its enactment would be in accord 
with the program of the President. 
Sincerely. 

Thomas Graham. Jr.. 

Acting.* 


By Mr. JOHNSTON (for himself 

and Mr. Breaux): 

S. 1078. A bill to conform the Federal 

relationship with the Jena Band of 

Choctaw Indians of Louisiana; to the 

Committee on Indian Affairs. 

JENA BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS OF LOUISIANA 
ACT OF 1993 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President. I in- 
troduce legislation that would confirm 
the Federal relationship with the Jena 
Band of Choctaw Indians. The bill has 
the same purpose as another piece of 
legislation which I introduced and the 
Senate passed by voice vote last ses- 
sion. The changes that have been made 
in the legislation serve to strengthen 
the Jena's claim and make absolutely 
clear the unique characteristics that 
make their case so compelling. 

The Jena are a small band with 152 
members located near the center of 
Louisiana. As the bill makes clear, 
there are strong factors of history, doc- 
umented leadership, significant com- 
munity ties, high blood degree, and 
continuity of membership and location 
which are unique to the Jena Band. 
The history and totality of cir- 
cumstances surrounding the Jena Band 
of Choctaw Indians provide unusual 
and compelling evidence in support of 
this confirmation of a Federal relation- 
ship. 

In 1903 and 1904, after presenting tes- 
timony before the Dawes Commission, 
the ancestors of the Jena Band were 
identified as "fuUblood Mississippi 
Choctaw Indians." More than 60 per- 
cent of the membership as identified by 
the roll dated December 1984 can docu- 
ment possessing one-half or more Choc- 
taw blood based on descents from an- 
cestors identified as Choctaw by the 
Dawes Commission. This high blood 
quantum indicates strong patterns of 
continuity and social community. 
Also, the Jena band has retained a dis- 
tinct dialect of the Choctaw language 
since historic times, providing further 
evidence of a distinct and historic 
band. 

No less important to the Jena's case 
is strong evidence of continuity of 
membership, location, and of political 
leadership. Moreover, the confirmation 
of the Federal relationship with the 
Jena Band is supported by all of the 
federally recognized tribes in Louisi- 
ana, and by the Mississippi Choctaw. 

The bill I am introducing would con- 
firm the Federal relationship with the 
Jena Band and would place the tribe on 
equal footing with all other federally 
recognized tribes in terms of services, 
benefits, tax status, and other applica- 
ble laws. This measure would also pro- 
vide for the development of a plan for 
economic development by the tribe. 


working with the Secretary of the Inte- 
rior. In addition, the bill provides for 
interim government, a tribal constitu- 
tion, and for eligibility for member- 
ship. The base roll of members upon 
which statistical support for confirma- 
tion is founded is the list dated Decem- 
ber 1, 1984, and submitted to the Bu- 
reau of Indian Affairs on May 2, 1985. 

In seeking legislative confirmation of 
the Federal relationship with the Jena 
Band, I do not mean to advocate aban- 
donment of the administrative recogni- 
tion process managed by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs in favor of legislative 
recognition for all those seeking tribal 
recognition. I do believe, however, that 
there is a very substantial body of evi- 
dence for the Jena that is unique and 
supportive of the authenticity and 
qualifications of the tribe. Moreover, 
the tribe has been attempting to gain 
recognition for 19 years, and their ef- 
forts have been marked by misunder- 
standings and opportunities missed by 
all involved in the process. Quite 
frankly, they have long been languish- 
ing, and further delay of action would 
be devastating. I believe that this long 
and troubled history, coupled with the 
truly unique factors demonstrating au- 
thenticity in support of confirmation 
of the Federal relationship, warrants a 
legislative effort in this case, and I 
strongly urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting this measure. 


ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS 
s. u 
At the request of Mr. Biden, the 
name of the Senator from Utah [Mr. 
Hatch] was added as a cosponsor of S. 
11, a bill to combat violence and crimes 
against women on the streets and in 
homes. 

S. 235 

At the request of Mr. REID, the 
names of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. 
Ak.^ka], the Senator from New Mexico 
[Mr. BiNGAMAN], the Senator from 
Montana [Mr. Burns], the Senator 
from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], and the 
Senator from Alaska [Mr. MURKOWSKI] 
were added as cosponsors of S. 235, a 
bill to limit State taxation of certain 
pension income, and for other purposes. 

S. 261 

At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, 
the name of the Senator from New 
York [Mr. D'Am.\to] was added as a co- 
sponsor of S. 261, a bill to protect chil- 
dren from exposure to environmental 
tobacco smoke in the provision of chil- 
dren's services, and for other purposes. 

S. 265 

At the request of Mr. Shelby, the 
names of the Senator from Minnesota 
[Mr. DuRENBERGER], the Senator from 
New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], and the 
Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne] 
were added as cosponsors of S. 265, a 
bill to increase the amount of credit 
available to fuel local, regional, and 


national economic growth by reducing 
the regulatory burden imposed upon fi- 
nancial institutions, and for other pur- 
poses. 

S. 335 

At the request of Mr. Inouye, the 
name of the Senator from New Jersey 
[Mr. Lautenberg] was added as a co- 
sponsor of S. 335, a bill to require the 
Secretary of Commerce to make addi- 
tional frequencies available for com- 
mercial assignment in order to pro- 
mote the development and use of new 
telecommunications technologies, and 
for other purposes. 

S. 348 

At the request of Mr. RiEGLE, the 
names of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
Harkin], the Senator from New Hamp- 
shire [Mr. Gregg], the Senator from 
Vermont [Mr. Leahy], the Senator 
from California [Mrs. Boxer], the Sen- 
ator from West Virginia [Mr. Rocke- 
feller), the Senator from Mississippi 
[Mr. Lott], the Senator from Washing- 
ton [Mr. Gorton], and the Senator 
from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] were 
added as cosponsors of S. 348, a bill to 
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to permanently extend qualified 
mortgage bonds. 

S. 427 

At the request of Mr. Mitchell, the 
name of the Senator from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Boren] was added as a cosponsor 
of S. 427, a bill to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to permit private 
foundations to use common investment 
funds. 

S. 441 

At the request of Mr. Campbell, the 
name of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. 
Reid) was added as a cosponsor of S. 
441. a bill to amend title 18, United 
States Code, to provide a mandatory 
minimum sentence for the unlawful 
possession of a firearm by a convicted 
felon, a fugitive from justice, a person 
who is addicted to, or an unlawful user 
of, a controlled substance, or a trans- 
feror or receiver of a stolen firearm, to 
increase the general penalty for a vio- 
lation of Federal firearms laws, and to 
increase the enhanced penalties pro- 
vided for the possession of a firearm in 
connection with a crime of violence or 
drug trafficking crime, and for other 
purposes. 

S. 483 

At the request of Mr. Shelby, the 
name of the Senator from Illinois [Ms. 
Moseley-Braun] was added as a co- 
sponsor of S. 483, a bill to provide for 
the minting of coins in commemora- 
tion of Americans who have been pris- 
oners of war, and for other purposes. 

S. 487 

At the request of Mr. Mitchell, the 
names of the Senator from West Vir- 
ginia [Mr. Rockefeller] and the Sen- 
ator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] 
were added as cosponsors of S. 487, a 
bill to amend the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 to permanently extend and'' 


June 7, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12107 


modify the low-income housing tax 
credit. i 

S. 520 

At the request of Mr. Bumpers, the 
naijie of the Senator from Utah [Mr. 
Bennett] was added as a cosponsor of 
S. p20, a bill to prohibit the expendi- 
turie of appropriated funds on the Ad- 
vaiiced Solid Rocket Motor Program. 

I S. 557 

At the request of Mr. Hatch, the 
naibe of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. 
Hatfield] was added as a cosponsor of 
S. )57. a bill to combat telemarketing 
ft-aid. 

S. 573 

At the request of Mr. Breaux, the 
name of the Senator from New Hamp- 
shire [Mr. Smith] was added as a co- 
spoinsor of S. 573, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to pro- 
vide for a credit for the portion of em- 
ployer social security taxes paid with 
respect to employee cash tips. 

S. 574 

At the request of Mr. Leahy, the 
name of the Senator from South Da- 
kota [Mr. Pressler] was added as a co- 
sponsor of S. 574, a bill to amend the 
National Cooperative Research Act of 
1984 with respect to joint ventures en- 
tered into for the purpose of producing 
a product, process, or service. 

S. 578 

At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the 
names of the Senator from New Hamp- 
shire [Mr. Gregg], and the Senator 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] were 
added as cosponsors of S. 578, a bill to 
protect the free exercise of religion. 

S. 600 

At the request of Mr. BOREN. the 
name of the Senator from New Hamp- 
shire [Mr. Smith] was added as a co- 
sponsor of S. 600, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
and modify the targeted jobs credit. 

S. 649 

At the request of Mr. RiEGLE, the 
name of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. 
INOUY'E] was added as a cosponsor of S. 
649, a bill to ensure proper and full im- 
plementation by the Department of 
Health and Human Services of Medic- 
aid coverage for certain low-income 
Medicare beneficiaries. 

S. 802 

At the request of Mr. Lautenberg. 
the name of the Senator from North 
Dakota [Mr. Conrad] was added as a 
cosponsor of S. 802, a bill to require the 
President to seek to obtain host nation 
payment of most or all of the overseas 
basing costs for forces of the Armed 
Forces of the United States in such na- 
tion, to limit the use of funds for pay- 
ing overseas basing costs for United 
States forces, and for other purposes. 

S. 834 

At the request of Mr. GRASSLEY, the 
name of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. 
Simon] was added as a cosponsor of S. 
834, a bill to amend title XVIII of the 


Social Security Act to provide for in- 
creased medicare reimbursement for 
physician assistants, to increase the 
delivery of health services in health 
professional shortage area, and for 
other purposes. 

S. S67 

At the request of Mr. Cohen, the 
name of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. 
Lugar] was added as a cosponsor of S. 
867, a bill to amend title XI of the So- 
cial Security Act to extend the pen- 
alties for fraud and abuse assessed 
against providers under the Medicare 
Program and State health care pro- 
grams to providers under all health 
care plans, and for other purposes. 

S. 936 

At the request of Mr. Chafee, the 
name of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. 
iNOUYE] was added £is a cosponsor of S. 
936, a bill to amend title XVIII of the 
Social Security Act to eliminate the 
annual cap on the amount of payment 
for outpatient physical therapy and oc- 
cupational therapy services under part 
B of the Medicare Program, and for 
other purposes. 

S. 968 

At the request of Mr. Daschle, the 
name of the Senator from Washington 
[Mrs. MURRAY] was added as a cospon- 
sor of S. 988, a bill to amend the Inter- 
nal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that 
conservation expenditures by electric 
and gas utilities are deductible for the 
year in which paid or incurred. 

S. 1011 

At the request of Mr. Pryor, the 
name of the Senator from Tennessee 
[Mr. Sasser] was added as a cosponsor 
of S. 1011, a bill to amend title XI of 
the Social Security Act to improve and 
clarify provisions prohibiting misuse of 
symbols, emblems, or names in ref- 
erence to Social Security programs and 
agencies. 

S. 1021 

At the request of Mr. iNOU'ifE, the 
name of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. 
Akaka) was added as a cosponsor of S. 
1021, a bill to assure religious freedom 
to native Americans. 

S. 1044 

At the request of Mr. DOLE, the 
names of the Senator from Connecticut 
[Mr. Lieberman], and the Senator from 
Utah [Mr. Hatch] were added as co- 
sponsors of S. 1044, a bill terminating 
the United States arms embargo of the 
Government of Bosnia and 

Herzegovina. 

SENATE JOI.NT RESOLUTION 50 

At the request of Mr. Specter, the 
names of the Senator from North Caro- 
lina [Mr. Helms], the Senator from 
Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger), the 
Senator from New York [Mr. MOY- 
nihan], and the Senator from Alaska 
[Mr. MURKOWSKI] were added as cospon- 
sors of Senate Joint Resolution 50, a 
joint resolution to designate the weeks 
of September 19. 1993, through Septem- 
ber 25, 1993, and of September 18, 1994, 


through September 24, 1994, as "Na- 
tional Rehabilitation Week." 

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 75 

At the request of Mr. ROTH, the 
names of the Senator from Louisiana 
[Mr. Breaux], the Senator from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Chafee], the Senator from 
Colorado [Mr. Brown], the Senator 
from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], and the 
Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] 
were added as cosponsors of Senate 
Joint Resolution 75, a joint resolution 
designating January 2, 1994, through 
January 8, 1994, as "National Law En- 
forcement Training Week." 

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 77 

At the request of Mr. Hatch, the 
name of the Senator from Massachu- 
setts [Mr. Kennedy] was added as a co- 
sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 77. 
a joint resolution to designate the 
week of April 18. 1993. through April 24. 
1993, as "International Student Aware- 
ness Week." 

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 91 

At the request of Mr. Specter, the 
names of the Senator from Kansas 
[Mrs. Kassebaum]. the Senator from 
Alabama [Mr. HEFLIN]. the Senator 
from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone]. the 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown]. 
the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye]. 
and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. 
Danforth] were added as cosponsors of 
Senate Joint Resolution 91. a joint res- 
olution designating October 1993 and 
October 1994 as "National Domestic Vi- 
olence Awareness Month." 

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 24 

At the request of Mr. DeConcini. the 
name of the Senator from Connecticut 
[Mr. Dodd] was added as a cosponsor of 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 24. a 
concurrent resolution concerning the 
removal of Russian troops from the 
independent Baltic States of Estonia. 
Latvia, and Lithuania. 


AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED 


CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN 

SPENDING LIMIT AND ELECTION 
REFORM ACT OF 1993 


GRAHAM AMENDMENTS NOS. 389- 
390 

Mr. GRAHAM proposed two amend- 
ments to amendment No. 366 (in the 
nature of a substitute) to the bill (S. 3) 
entitled the "Congressional Spending 
Limit and Election Reform Act of 
1993." as follows: 

AMENDMENT NO. 389 

At the end of title VII add the followingr: 
SEC. . GRANTS FOR VOTER INFORMATION PAM- 
PHLETS. 

Title III of FECA. as amended by section . 
is amended by adding at the end the follow- 
ing new section: 
■GRANTS FOR VOTER INFORMATION PAMPHLETS 

■Sec. . (a) Definition.— For the purposes 
of this section, the term 'eligible candidate 


12108 


CONGRESSIONAL R£CORI>— SENATE 


June 7, 1993 


June 7, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12109 


for Federal office' means a candidate who 
has filed a declaration with the Commission 
stating the candidate's agreement to abide 
by expenditure limits determined under this 
Act. 

■■(b) Grants.— The Commission may make 
grants to the States to assist in paying for 
the preparation and mailing of voter infor- 
mation pamphlets in connection with gen- 
eral elections for Federal office. 

"(c) Contents.— A voter information pam- 
phlet shall contain (in addition to any infor- 
mation pertaining to State and locaj elec- 
tions, referenda, candidates, issues, or other 
matters that may be included) a statement 
submitted by each eligible candidate for Fed- 
eral ofi'ice in the State that^ 

■■(1) shall be comprised of no more than 5iOO 
word; and 

"(2) describes the occupation, occupational 
background, government experience, and 
educational background of a candidate and 
any other information concerning the can- 
didate or the candidate's views as the can- 
didate chooses to include. 

•■(d) Maili.ng.— 

■'(1) In general.— a voter information 
shall be mailed, in time to be delivered be- 
tween 15 and 30 days before the date of a gen- 
eral election for Federal office, to each 
household in a State. 

••(2) Mailing lists. To assist a State in the 
mailing of voter information pamphlets, the 
United States Postal Service shall provide to 
the appropriate State officer, without 
charge, a list of the mailing addresses of all 
households in the State. 

"(e) Federal Share.— The Federal share of 
the cost of the preparation and mailing of a 
voter preparation pamphlet shall bear the 
same proportion to the total cost of the 
preparation and mailing of the pamphlet as 
the volume of the statements of candidates 
for Federal office bears to the total volume 
of the pamphlet.". 

Amendment No. 390 

On page 50. strike line 23 and all that fol- 
lows through page 51, line 19, and insert the 
following: 

(a) Broadcast Rates.— Section 315(b) of 
the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
315(b)) is amended to read as follows: 

"(bKl) The charge made for the use of a 
broadcasting station by an eligible candidate 
in connection with the candidate's campaign 
for nomination for election, or election, to 
public office shall not exceed— 

"(A) during the 30 days preceding the date 
of a primary or primary runoff election in 
which the candidate is a candidate, a charge 
equal to the lowest charge of the station for 
the same amount of time for the same period 
on the same date: 

"(B) during the 60 days preceding the date 
of a general or special election in which the 
candidate is a candidate — 

"(i) in the case of charge that is to be paid 
by a voucher issued under section 503(c)(1)(B) 
of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
by reason of the independent expenditure 
amount, the lowest charge of the station for 
the same amount of time for the same period 
on the same date: and 

"(11) in any other case, 50 percent of the 
lowest charge of the station for the same 
amount of time for the same period on the 
same date: and 

■'(C) at any other time, the charge made 
for comparable use of such station by other 
users thereof. 

"(2) For the purposes of this section, the 
term 'eligible candidate' means — 

"(A) an eligible Senate candidate (as de- 
fined in section 301 of the Federal Election 
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)): and 


■■(B) a candidate for State office who un- 
dertakes to abide by reasonable spending 
limits established under State law that the 
Federal Election Commission, under a regu- 
lation issued jointly by the Commission, 
under a regulation issued jointly by the 
Commission and the Federal Election Com- 
mission, certifies to the Commission are 
comparable to those established under title 
V of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1971.". 


NOTICES OF HEARINGS 
committee on rules and administration 
There will be a meeting of the Com- 
mittee on Rules and Administration, in 
SR-301. Russell Office Building, on 
Monday. May 10. 1993, at 2 p.m. Hearing 
to receive oral argument from counsel 
for the petitioners and counsel for the 
junior Senator from Oregon on certain 
legal issues raised by the petitions re- 
garding the election in Oregon. 
small business co.mmittee 
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I 
would like to announce that the Small 
Business Committee will hold a full 
committee hearing to examine the con- 
tribution of SBA's financing programs 
to the development of critical tech- 
nologies. The hearing will take place 
on Wednesday. June 9. 1993. at 10:30 
a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Sen- 
ate Office Building. For further infor- 
mation, please call Patricia Forbes, 
counsel to the Small Business Commit- 
tee at 224-5175. 


ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS 


REPORT ON ELECTORAL 
PROCEDURES IN EL SALVADOR 

• Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Re- 
public of El Salvador is currently un- 
dergoing a difficult transition from 
civil war to peacetime democracy. 
Those of us familiar with the war-torn 
El Salvador of the early 1980's recog- 
nize the enormous progress that has 
been made through the negotiation and 
partial implementation of the Decem- 
ber 1991 peace agreement. The demo- 
cratic political center in El Salvador is 
expanding and with it the hopes for 
stability and shared economic progress. 
Unfortunately, serious problems of im- 
plementation and troubling questions 
of political will remain. 

In this connection. I am pleased to 
offer to my colleagues for their review 
a report entitled, "El Salvador— Free 
and Fair Elections Project." The re- 
port was prepared by a six-person Unit- 
ed States delegation that visited El 
Salvador for a week in mid-April. Al- 
though Senators may not agree with 
all of the views of the delegation, I be- 
lieve they will find the report useful in 
evaluating the status of El Salvador's 
transition to democratic institutions 
and practices. 

Accordingly. I ask that the report of 
the "El Salvador— Free and Fair Elec- 


tions Project" appear at this point in 

the Record. 

The report follows: 

El Salvador: Free and Fair Elections 

Project 

I. introduction 

Background of the delegation 

From April 16 to 19. 1993 a six-person dele- 
gation from the United States visited El Sal- 
vador to assess the prospects for free and fair 
elections as that country proceeds towards 
the March 1994 presidential, legislative and 
municipal elections. These elections are 
widely viewed as the culmination of the 
peace process initiated by the signing of the 
United Nations-sponsored Peace Accords in 
January 1992. Salvadorans we interviewed re- 
peatedly referred to them as '■the elections 
of the century." This report presents the del- 
egation's findings. 

The delegation was led by Representative 
Dan Hamburg, Democrat of California and 
included the following: 

Kate Anderton. Legislative Director for 
Rep. Hamburg: Dr. Jamal Benomar, Director 
of Human Rights at the Carter Center in At- 
lanta. Georgia; Professor William 
LeoGrande, Chair of the Political Science 
Department at American University and a 
former foreign policy staffperson for the 
Democratic Policy Committee and the House 
Democratic Caucus Task Force on Central 
America: Daniel Solomon, former campaign 
consultants to Senator Harris Wofford (D- 
PA) and a state field organizer in Governor 
Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign; and Donna 
Mandel. International Representative for the 
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers 
Union and former Legislative Director of the 
National Agenda for Peace in El Salvador. 

The delegation was sjjonsored by the 
Southwest Voter Research Institute 
(SWVRI). the Center for Democracy in the 
Americas (CDA) and the National Agenda for 
Peace in El Salvador (NAPES), SWVRI, 
based in Los Angeles, has been active in non- 
partisan voter education efforts and elec- 
tions monitoring in El Salvador for several 
years. CDA and NAPES are jointly coordi- 
nating a Free and Fair Elections Project in 
Washington DC. intended to educate policy- 
makers in Congress and the Executive 
Branch about the Salvadoran elections. Fi- 
nancial support was provided by the ARCA 
Foundation, the Foundation for a Compas- 
sionate Society, the SHARE Foundation, and 
private individuals. 

The members of the delegation would like 
to thank the organizational sponsors for 
their logistical and financial support, as well 
as Tom Goldsbury for arranging most of 
their meetings in San Salvador, and Ann 
Kamsvaag for her fine job of translation. Ken 
Jacobs and Edwin Rodriguez were also very 
helpful in providing advice and facilitating 
arrangements in San Salvador, and Donna 
Mandel did an exemplary job of pulling the 
delegation together over several months. 

Most of all. the delegation would like to 
thank the many people from all political 
backgrounds who, often on very short notice, 
found the time to meet with us and candidly 
share their views on the current situation in 
El Salvador. 

Methodology of the report 

This report is a synthesis of views, except 
where specifically noted or where quotation 
marks are used. The delegation meet with 
leaders of political parties from all parts of 
the spectrum, from right to left, as well as 
community organizers, clergy and members 
of the international press corps. It also met 
with individuals from the United Nations Ob- 


server Mission (ONUSAL). the U.S. Agency 
for International Development (USAID), the 
Electoral Subcommission of the official 
Peace Commission (COPAZ) charged with 
implementing the Peace Accords, the Su- 
preme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), and the 
U.S. Charge d'Affaires. 

II. executive su.mmary and 

recommendations 

The overwhelming majority of persons 

interviewed identified two essential actions 

that are required if there are to be truly free 

and fair elections: 

(1) Full and timely implementation of the 
Peace Accords, including the recommenda- 
tions of the Ad Hoc and Truth Commissions, 
in compliance with the schedule mandated 
by the United Nations Secretary General: 

(2) Registration of all voting age Salva- 
dorans. in an atmosphere free from intimida- 
tion and bureaucratic obstacles. 

In addition, the delegation agreed on a 
more detailed set of findings regarding the 
upcoming electoral campaign. 

Current electoral procedures are deeply 
flawed. The registration process for new vot- 
ers is so complex that it must either be radi- 
cally simplified or replaced if the objective 
of registering all Salvadorans of voting age 
is to be met: otherwise as many as three- 
quarters of a million people will remain 
unenfranchised. 

The root problem with the electoral proc- 
ess is not technical but political: there ap- 
pears to be a lack of political will on the 
part of the government to make voter reg- 
istration a priority. The lesson of Nicaragua, 
where the entire country was registered over 
four successive weekends, stands in sharp 
contrast to the repeated stories the delega- 
tion heard of excessive delay and an ineffec- 
tual bureaucratic process. In addition, the 
existing Electoral Register must be updated, 
since it includes hundreds of thousands of in- 
eligible or deceased voters, presenting a seri- 
ous opportunity for fraud and repeat voting. 
Key elements of the Peace Accords have 
not been implemented, and continued inac- 
tion in these areas could prevent a ■■level 
playing field" during the upcoming election 
campaign. 

The promised dismisssal from the Armed 
Forces of officers named as human rights 
abusers must be implemented if societal fear 
and apathy are to be dispelled, especially in 
the countryside. The Army and the National 
Police must be restricted to their legitimate 
functions, not only during the week of the 
election but in the months beforehand: Oth- 
erwise activities from opposition parties will 
not feel safe to campaign. The Army should 
observe its constitutional mission, which is 
limited to national defense, and refrain from 
any policing activity, as guaranteed under 
the Peace Accords. Dissolution of the old Na- 
tional Police and nationwide deployment of 
the new National Civilian Police (PNC) in all 
fourteen provinces well before March 1994, as 
mandated in the Peace Accords, is essential 
to establish a secure public space for non- 
violent debate. The judicial reform measures 
stipulated in the report of the Truth Com- 
mission are crucial to esUblishing the rule 
of law. Only an independent judicial system 
can guarantee due process and free speech 
during the campaign, and the legitimacy of 
election results afterwards. 

The United Nations, the United SUtes and 
international non-government organizations 
(NGOs) all have vital roles to play in ensur- 
ing that free and fair elections occur in El 
Salvador. 

The United Nations elections monitoring 
team needs a strong mandate from the UN 


Security Council to verify the workings of 
the electoral system over the next ten 
months through continuous concrete rec- 
ommendations in addition to observation. 
The United States must put in place an am- 
bassador with instructions to strongly en- 
courage the Government of El Salvador 
(GOES) to fully implement the Peace Ac- 
cords, clean up electoral procedures, and ac- 
cept UN recommendations throughout the 
pre-electoral period as well as during the 
elections themselves. The United States 
Congress should condition Economic Support 
Funds to the GOES on progress in these 
areas. Non-governmental organizations from 
outside El Salvador should begin now to ob- 
serve the electoral process and provide aid to 
nonpartisan Salvadoran NGO's attempting 
to register and educate voters. 

As the largest source of external aid to El 
Salvador, the United States must play a 
strictly neutral role, acting as an honest 
broker to bring all sides together. 

Our government was clearly aligned with 
one side during the civil war. and reportedly 
intervened in a variety of ways to inOuence 
the results of Salvadoran elections during 
the 1980's. It should use its influence in the 
post-civil war period to encourage democra- 
tization and reconciliation in two important 
ways; first, the US should give strong and 
public political and financial support to the 
UN election monitoring efforts in El Sal- 
vador, second, USAID should contract with 
Salvadoran and international NGO's on a 
nonpartisan and evenhanded basis to register 
voters and conduct civic education cam- 
paigns. Where Salvadoran NGO's do not have 
the technical capacity to qualify for USAID 
support under US financial monitoring pro- 
visions, they should be assisted to develop 
this capacity. 

III. historical background 
El Salvador has traditionally been ruled by 
a landed elite in alliance with the officer 
corps of the Armed Forces. However, in the 
1960's, a political space opened for civilian 
electoral politics. Parties on the center and 
left such as the Christian Democrats (PDC). 
the National Revolutionary Movement 
(MNR) and the Democratic Nationalist 
Union (UDN). won positions in the national 
legislature and important mayoralties. To 
many, El Salvador seemed to be moving in 
the direction of democracy. 

The 1972 national elections were symbolic 
of this trend. The National Opposition Union 
(UNO), a coalition of the three parties de- 
scribes above, nominated Christian Demo- 
crat Jose Napoleon Durate for President and 
social democrat Guillermo Ungo of the MNR 
for Vice President. Most observers agree that 
UNO won a large majority of the vote. But 
the democratic opening quickly closed. Bal- 
lot boxes were seized by the military and 
their candidate declared a winner. Durate 
was deported from the country, and repres- 
sion intensified, beginning the cycle of 
death-squad killings that polarized the coun- 
try in the late 1970's. Increasingly, opposi- 
tion activists turned to clandestine organiz- 
ing and formed guerrilla movements, a tend- 
ency aggravated when an UNO ticket again 
won a majority during the 1977 elections, and 
was again deprived of victory by military- 
sponsored fraud. 

By the time of El Salvador's next elections 
in 1982, the country was in the midst of a 
full-scale civil war between the Farabundo 
Marti National Liberation Frqnt (FMLN) 
and a US supported civilian-miliUry junta. 
The latter now included the Christian Demo- 
cratic Party led by returned exile Jose 
Napoleon Durare. Rightwing sectors, widely 


believed to be linked to the death squads, 
had coalesced into the Nationalist Repub- 
lican Alliance (ARENA) party. Murders of ci- 
vilians, usually attributed to the military 
and the right often averaged a thousand or 
more per month, including hundreds of local 
Christian Democratic officials. 

The 1982 elections were held to elect a con- 
stituent assembly, which then elected a pro- 
visional president and wrote a new constitu- 
tion. As desf ribed in the book Weakness and 
Deceit by reporter Raymond Bonner of The 
New York Times, ARENA and its allies on 
the right won a majority of seats. The Unit- 
ed States intervened to dissuade the assem- 
bly from choosing as president ARENA 
founder Roberto D'Aubuisson, who the US 
Embassy identified as responsible for the as- 
sassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero In 
March 1980. This intensive US involvement 
in the process and outcomes of Salvadoran 
elections continued throughout the 19eO's. 
The Washington Post and other newspapers 
reported, for instance, that the Central In- 
telligence Agency funneled over a million 
dollars to Mr. Durate's successful campaign 
against Major D'Aubuisson in 1984, A larger 
issue was that these and later elections in 
1985. 1988. 1989 and 1991 were conducted in the 
middle of a civil war, when large parts of the 
countryside were ■■conflictive zones." 

In 1991. the Democratic Convergence (CD), 
a coalition of moderate left and social demo- 
cratic parties, campaigned hard for seats in 
the legislature. Despite an atmosphere of vi- 
olence at many polling places controlled by 
ARENA, the initial reports gave the CD 
nearly 16% of the vote, making it the third- 
largest party in the Legislative Assembly. 
When the final results were announced days 
later, the Convergence had slipped into 
fourth place with less than 12%, displaced by 
the Party of National Conciliation, founded 
by the Armed Forces in the early 1960s and 
now closely aligned with AI.ENA. Conver- 
gence leader Ruben Zamora charged fraud, 
describing how ballots marked for his party 
were found dumped in trash receptacles. 
IV. delegation report 
Current conditions in El Salvador 
Upon arrival in San Salvador, the delega- 
tion was briefed by Father Dean Brackley, 
SJ, of the University of Central America. Fa- 
ther Brackley reported that a widespread 
•climate of terror" continues to limit open 
political campaigning by opposition groups 
in many rural areas. Even in areas that had 
seen little fighting. Catholic layworkers are 
being threatened. The FMLN or Convergence 
parties cannot openly organize outside of 
major cities. The government's civil defense 
network of informers still functions in some 
areas, despite the Peace Accords' require- 
ment that it be demobilized. In Father 
Brackley's opinion, it would take only the 
murder of a few campaign organizers to jeop- 
ardize the possibility of a free and fair elec- 
tion. Since the large majority of rural dwell- 
ers are illiterate, and access to the mass 
media is very limited, voter registration and 
education depend on face-to-face contact in- 
volving thousands of community volunteers. 
Given El Salvador's recent history, these 
volunteers cannot be mobilized if para- 
militarjr. violence resurfaces in any signifi- 
cant fashion. „ , , . j 
More positively. Father Brackley noted 
that a remarkable shift in El Salvador's po- 
litical culture was under way. Because of the 
Truth Commission, which named top mili- 
Ury officers directly responsible for various 
atrocities, ordinary Salvadorans for the first 
time in their lives feel free to speak the 
truth. He believed that it was crucial to 


12110 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


June 7, 1993 


June 7. 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12111 


deepen this process by implementing judicial 
reform. Father Brackley noted in conclusion 
that economic pressure from outside El Sal- 
vador "is the only reason the Peace Accords 
are being implemented." He stressed that 
sustained scrutiny by international observ- 
ers in necessary to safeguard the electoral 
process in the coming months. 

The registration process arid the role of public 
institutions 

Two bodies are directly responsible for 
overseeing the electoral process. The first is 
the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE). 
which organizes the elections, including the 
registration of candidates, parties and vot- 
ers, and certifies the results. The second is 
the Electoral Subcommission of COPAZ, the 
commission set up to implement the Peace 
Accords, which is responsible for proposing 
revisions in the electoral laws to the Legisla- 
tive Assembly and monitoring the campaign 
itself. 

The delegation met with a large group 
from the COPAZ Electoral Subcommission. 
including representatives of the Christian 
Democratic Party. ARENA, the National 
Revolutionary Movement, the Democratic 
Convergence, the Authentic Christian Move- 
ment and a new evangelical party, the Na- 
tional Solidarity Movement. The elaborate 
registration process was described in detail. 

First, a potential voter must present or 
apply for a national identity card (or "ce- 
dula"). New applicants must provide a range 
of legal information, much of which is not 
easily available to poor and displaced people. 
Governmental verification of the applicant's 
birth record and information is often a 
lengthy, dauntling process, particularly 
since records in many town halls were de- 
stroyed during the war. Although recent leg- 
islation has authorized an alternative ver- 
ification procedure, this part of the process 
often results in significant delay. When 
would-be voters do present a valid cedula to 
an office of the TSE. their names are 
checked against the current Electoral Reg- 
ister to make sure they are not already reg- 
istered. If it is determined that the applicant 
is not on the Register, he or she can apply 
for the separate electoral •"camet," or voter 
registration card. By law, this card must be 
issued in thirty days. 

Members of COPAZ then explained the ad- 
ditional factors hindering rapid registration 
of new voters. The small number of offices 
available for registration are only open 
weekdays and during business hours. At each 
stage the individual must appear in person 
and file the appropriate application. Finally 
and most seriously, each of the processes de- 
scribed above typically takes months, with 
applications often lost or misplaced. Under 
these conditions, it w£is not surprising to dis- 
cover a large and growing backlog of appli- 
cants whose registrations were not yet com- 
plete, and many more who were unprepared 
for the rigors of applying. 

The Christian Democratic Party (PDC) 
representative to COPAZ presented the dele- 
gation with a document reporting that while 
the current Electoral Register listed 2.4 mil- 
lion people, it was estimated that 240,000 reg- 
istered voters were no longer living, and an- 
other 340,000 had emigrated. The PDC study 
also estimated that at least 750.000 potential 
voters were unregistered, and 120.000 more 
were still waiting to receive their carnets. 
The document concluded that at the current 
pace, only 11% of unregistered voters would 
receive carnets by the deadline of December 
13, 1993. All of the opposition parties (PDC. 
Convergence, MNR and FMLN) endorsed this 
document, though the ARENA representa- 
tive strongly disavowed it. 


Those present differed as to the source of 
the gridlock in the electoral process. The 
ARENA representative stressed that any 
problems were equally the fault of the three 
major parties originally making up the Su- 
preme Electoral Tribunal— not only ARENA, 
but the Christian Democrats and the Na- 
tional Conciliation Party. He also criticized 
the FMLN, which had abstained from and op- 
posed the elections of the 1980"s. The opposi- 
tion parties of the center and left disagreed 
with this assessment. All of them stressed 
that the registration process itself was un- 
necessarily complex, and must be simplified. 
They also noted that ARENA refused to ac- 
cept that large numbers of Salvadorans were 
unregistered, and therefore did not see the 
need for any reform. 

A meeting with Pedro Solorzano. Demo- 
cratic Convergence representative on the Su- 
preme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) clarified 
many of the problems identified by members 
of COPAZ. He explained that of the TSE's 
five members, two were ARENA members (a 
party representative and the body's presi- 
dent, chosen by the ARENA-controUed Su- 
preme Court) and another was from the Na- 
tional Conciliation Party (PCN), allied to 
ARENA. This bloc prevented any meaningful 
discussion of reforms, to the extent that Mr. 
Solorzano said that "the present system 
makes it impossible for us to go forward 
with a fair election process . . . the system 
is designed to produce certain outcomes." 

He then described the TSE's structure and 
functioning. Each of the three parties origi- 
nally serving on it (ARENA. PCN and PDC) 
wais allowed to appoint 400 employees. Many 
of the 1200 holders of these patronage jobs 
were "no-shows." who actually worked in 
their respective party headquarters rather 
than as nonpartisan elections workers. As a 
result of the limited number of trained and 
committed elections workers, people apply- 
ing to register were given the wrong infor- 
mation, or told to return on another day. 
Under the law, once an individual's identity 
was verified and finalized, a carnet should be 
issued within 30 days. However, many people 
had been waiting for months, or more than a 
year in some cases. As an example of the web 
of restrictions on free exercise of the fran- 
chise. Mr. Solorzano also noted that the city 
of San Salvador, with more than a million 
potential voters, had only eight polling 
places. 

Mr. Solorzano summed up by recommend- 
ing that the eminently political decisions 
over how and when to register voters should 
be moved from the TSE to a more public 
arena such as the Legislative Assembly 
where they could be freely debated. He also 
stressed that the UN had a crucial role to 
play in objectively investigating and verify- 
ing the fairness of the electoral process. 
The role of the United Nations 

The delegation met with Blanca Antonini, 
chief political affairs officer of the United 
Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador 
(ONUSAL). In addition, the delegation as- 
sessed the role of the United Nations in 
meetings with the political parties. 

With Ms. Antonini, the delegation first dis- 
cussed ONUSAL's participation in the Salva- 
doran peace process. It was involved in the 
negotiations process from April 1990 on. 
helped to oversee the ceasefire throughout 
1992. worked to reintegrate ex-combatants 
from both sides into civilian life, and is cur- 
rently working to support "deep institu- 
tional reforms" to build a democratic soci- 
ety. In El Salvador, she concluded, the UN 
mission is involved in "peacemaking, peace- 
keeping, and peacebuilding." 


Ms. Antonini then explained that the Unit- 
ed Nations began to look at the issues 
around the Salvadoran elections in the sum- 
mer of 1992. The UN Department of Political 
Affairs in New York has a new Unit for Elec- 
toral Assistance. Horacio Boneo of that unit 
led a small technical team which did an in- 
ternal assessment in the fall of 1992. In Janu- 
ary, the Salvadoran government formally re- 
quested that the UN monitor the elections. 
When the United Nations Security Council 
renews the mandate of ONUSAL in May 1993. 
they are likely to establish a new division 
within ONUSAL to do electoral monitoring. 
In fact, as our delegation was leaving EI Sal- 
vador. Mr. Boneo was returning with another 
technical assessment team, in preparation 
for the creation of the electoral unit. 

Ms. Antonini identified several issues that 
would have to be resolved in order for there 
to be free and fair elections in El Salvador. 
Cleaning up the electoral rolls— purging the 
names of the deceased, of those registered in 
more than one place, and of those registered 
under false names— is one important task. 
Registering the unregistered is another. Reg- 
istering the unregistered depends on first 
getting national identify cards (cedulas) to 
all citizens: she estimated that 250.000 to 
500,000 citizens currently lack identity cards. 
The UN High Commission on Refugees is in- 
volved in the process of obtaining provi- 
sional cedulas for refugees and the displaced. 

In addition to these issues related to the 
electoral rolls, Ms. Antonini named two 
other concerns about the role the military 
and security forces might play in these elec- 
tions. First, the opposition is worried that 
"military civic action" campaigns, in which 
army troops go into the countryside to offer 
humanitarian assistance to campesinos, 
would create a visible military presence in 
rural areas that would intimidate people. 
Second, she noted that in some areas the Na- 
tional Police, who have not yet been re- 
placed by the new National Civilian Police, 
tend to work closely with local military offi- 
cials. Under these circumstances, residents 
afraid of the military tend to be equally 
afraid of the police. In her view, these issues 
must be addressed if the political climate for 
free and fair elections is to be established. 

In other meetings, leaders of the various 
political parties raised several issues about 
the role of the United Nations in the elec- 
tions. The nature of the UN Observer Mis- 
sion's mandate is most critical. ARENA has 
taken the position that the appropriate role 
for the United Nations is simply to observe 
the process, noting and calling attention to 
any irregularities. Other political parties 
have called for a more active role for the UN, 
asking that they be involved in "verifying" 
that the elections are free and fair. This 
would require a broader mandate from the 
UN Security Council for the election unit to 
use its good offices to make recommenda- 
tions to the governments, the TSE, and 
COPAZ about steps they could take to im- 
prove the process. Representatives of both 
the Democratic Convergence and the FMLN 
noted that the recommendations of previous 
UN-sponsored studies of the Salvadoran elec- 
toral process had not been implemented. A 
broader mandate for the electoral unit of 
ONUSAL would give more weight to the 
unit's recommendations, and increase the 
likelihood of governmental compliance. 
The role of the political parties 

The delegation met with FMLN, a Demo- 
cratic Convergence and Christian Demo- 
cratic party leaders. Appointments were con- 
firmed with President Alfredo Cristiani. San 
Salvador Mayor Armando Calderon Sol 


(ARENA'S 1994 presidential candidate) and 
another party director, but none of these 
ARENA leaders was able to attend his meet- 
ing with the delegation due to other commit- 
ments. Fortunately, the delegation met with 
ARENA representatives in COPAZ and at the 
house of the US Charge d'Affaires. 

The delegation found deep misgivings 
about the fairness of the elections process 
across the spectrum of the opposition par- 
ties, Gerson Martinez, Secretary of the 
FMLN's Elections Commission, Ana Guada- 
lupe Martinez, another FMLN leader, and 
PDC leader Gerado LeChevalier all raised 
the possibility of boycotting the elections if 
irregularities in the registration of new vot- 
ers were not addressed. There was remark- 
able unanimity among the representatives of 
the opposition political parties and the 
members of the COPAZ Electoral Sub- 
commission and the TSE. The opposition be- 
lieves that the incumbent ARENA party is 
prepared to use the advantages of incum- 
bency to the maximum degree to restrict the 
number of eligible voters, apparently based 
in the perception that many of these voters 
are former refugees who favor the opposition 
parties. 

Fidel Chavez Mena. 1989 Christian Demo- 
cratic presidential candidate, explained that 
his party was going through a primary to .se- 
lect their 1994 nominee. He and Abraham 
Rodriguez were the two candidates. He 
stressed that a strong UN presence was need- 
ed to ensure a clean vote, and underlined the 
importance of reform of the military and a 
"profound" restructuring of the judiciary. In 
his opinion. ARENA wanted as few voters as 
possible. He called for an overhaul of the 
voter registration process, and for active US 
involvement, saying "the US Congress has 
an important role to play in demanding com- 
pliance with the Trust Commission." Mr. 
Chavez Mena also discussed the importance 
of coaltion-building among parties with dif- 
ferent political perspectives, and having a 
government after 1994 that will reflect a na- 
tional consensus. 

Hector Silva, a Legislative Assembly dep- 
uty from the Democratic Convergence and 
campaign manager for CD presidential can- 
didate Ruben Zamora, also stressed that "if 
we are unable to change this judicial system, 
we will be in trouble over this next year." He 
said that the credibility of the electoral 
process was severely threatened because of 
the TSE's actions. As one example of how 
TSE employees obstruct new voters, he 
noted that the lack of sufficient cameras to 
take photographs for carnets is typically 
used as an excuse for delay: alternatively, 
voters were told that there was not enough 
film, or plastic laminating material for the 
cards themselves. Mr. Silva also was con- 
cerned over the lack of action by the US Em- 
bassy on electoral issues, in contreist to its 
earlier activism in pressing for the removal 
of various military officers. 

The delegation also met with several top 
FMLN officials, including Gerson Martinez. 
Norma Guevara and Ana Guadalupe Mar- 
tinez. They too were highly critical of the 
TSE. As one example of how difficult it was 
to register as a voter, they noted that 
Shafick Handal. Coordinator of the FMLN 
and earlier a prominent political figure in 
the UNO coalition, had still not received his 
carnet after more than a year's wait. Con- 
curring with members of the COPAZ Elec- 
toral Subcommission. the FMLN leaders also 
cited a figure of three-quarters of a million 
unregistered voters, and gave specific details 
on how ARENA party officials were blocking 
registration of voters in some areas. "If this 


is the game, we cannot go to a real elec- 
tion," concluded Gerson Martinez, who also 
had been waiting for his carnet for over a 
year. 

The role of non-governmental organizations in 
voter education 

The delegation met with two nonpartisan 
groups involved in voter registration and 
civic education efforts. Discussions . with 
them highlighted the important role that 
nongovernmental organizations have to play 
in the creation of a truly democratic society 
in El Salvador. 

Camino a la Paz (CAPAZ) was begun as an 
ad hoc group in 1990. when a number of polit- 
ical activists became concerned about the 
high level of voter abstention. The history of 
Salvadoran elections, rife with fraud and 
corruption, had left many voters disillu- 
sioned and cynical. Voter participation has 
declined steadily throughout the 1980s. These 
activists saw the potential for the elections 
of 1991 and 1994 to contribute to peace and 
national reconciliation and hoi>ed to stimu- 
late participation in the electoral process. 
Their effort was nonpartisan, although some 
of the participants came from the Christian 
Democratic Patty and the Democratic Con- 
vergence. 

CAPAZ carries out door-to-door campaigns 
in many parts of the country designed to en- 
courage citizens to get their identity cards, 
register to vote, and participate in the demo- 
cratic process. CAPAZ activists expressed 
concern that the programs sponsored by the 
Supreme Electoral Tribunal to encourage 
participation in the electoral process were 
ineffective and underfunded. The delegation 
observed an afternoon of door-to-door edu- 
cation in a town near San Salvador by a 
CAPAZ team and noted the caution of many 
potential voters in discussing politics or vot- 
ing. Delegation members had the oppor- 
tunity to discuss issues connected to the reg- 
istration process with USAID representa- 
tives also observing CAPAZ's work. 

The Social Initiative for Democracy (ISD) 
is a project sponsored by more than 20 com- 
munity organizations, along with several 
well-known political figures. It is intended 
to work in a group of targeted communities 
to educate citizens about their political and 
voting rights. It will carry out five cam- 
paigns of neighborhood housemeetings to 
identify key issues of voter concern and in- 
crease participation in the political process. 

A meeting with the ISD's Honorary Board 
afforded the delegation the opportunity to 
talk with several individuals with extensive 
electoral experience in El Salvador. They in- 
cluded Dr. Jorge Bustamante. the ex-director 
of the Central Elections Council. Francisco 
Lima, a former Vice-President of El Sal- 
vador, and Francisco Barrientos. the vice- 
presidential candidate of the Christian 
Democratic Party in 1989. Speaking from his 
own experience of supervising national elec- 
tions. Dr. Bustamante explained that "elec- 
tions here have always been free, but the re- 
sults have always been fraudulent." because 
local vote totals historically have been 
changed en route to the capital. He noted 
that in the past voter registration closed fif- 
teen days before the vote itself, but that 
deadline had now been pushed up to Decem- 
ber 13, more than three months prior to the 
vote, for reasons that were unclear. The 
main effect would be to prevent registration 
of voters during the actual campaign. He 
also warned the delegation in the strongest 
possible terms regarding the credibility of 
the current Supreme Electoral Tribunal. 
"What's being planned right now is a tre- 
mendous fraud," he said. "The future of this 


country depends on the complete honesty of 
the TSE. If not we run the risk of starting a 
new war." 

The role of the United States 
The delegation's visit culminated in a din- 
ner and meeting hosted by the US Charge 
d'Affaires in El Salvador, Peter Romero. Mr. 
Romero had invited representatives of his 
country team from the Embassy and the 
USAID Mission, as well leading political fig- 
ures such as Ruben Zamora of the Demo- 
cratic Convergence. Gerardo LeChevalier of 
the PDC. Doctor Jaime Romero Ventura, 
ARENA member of the TSE, and Doctor Luis 
Arturo Zaldivar, President of the TSE. The 
delegation wishes to express its particular 
gratitude for Mr. Romero's hospitality. 

This gathering provided the opportunity 
for a frank and productive debate about the 
character and current state of the electoral 
process in El Salvador. Both Mr. Romero and 
directors of the USAID mission maintained 
strongly that any problems in the registra- 
tion process and the work of the TSE were of 
a technical and not a political nature, and 
would be dealt with in time. The delegation 
disagreed emphatically with this assess- 
ment, and brought to the Embassy's atten- 
tion the figures regarding ineligible vote;rs 
still on the rolls and the massive number of 
unregistered voters, as well as the opposition 
parties' perspective regarding the attitude of 
the pro-ARENA majority on the TSE. Mr. 
LaChevalier and Mr. Zamora underlined 
their agreement with these assessments. By 
the end of the long discussion, everyone 
present agreed that regardless of whether 
the TSE's problems were of a technical or a 
political nature, or the precise numbers of 
potential voters involved, the opposition was 
losing faith in the integrity of the process, 
and this loss of confidence threatened the 
elections themselves. 

The delegation left El Salvador on April 19 
with a strong sense of the rroblems facing 
the Salvadoran people as the / move towards 
peace and genuinely free and fair election, as 
well as the commitment of many Salva- 
dorans from different political backgrounds 
to overcoming those problems.* 


TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY ACT 
OF 1993 

• Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise 
today to lend my suppbrt to S. 725, the 
Traumatic Brain Injury Act of 1993. 

Approximately 2 million people suf- 
fer serious head injuries each year in 
the United States, and of these, 400,000 
are children. Of the 2 million head inju- 
ries suffered, 100,000 are fatal within 
the first few hours. Those who survive 
often require long hospital stays and 
extensive rehabilitation. 

Among Americans 15 to 24 years old. 
traumatic brain injury is the leading 
cause of death and disability. The total 
cost to Americans of medical services 
for traumatic brain injuries is esti- 
mated at more than $25 billion a year. 

It is time to address traumatic brain 
injury with legislation to facilitate im- 
proved treatment of head injuries 
through more medical research, devel- 
opment of effective guidelines for trau- 
ma, and coordination of prevention 
services to reduce the number of head 
injury occurrences. The Traumatic 
Brain Injury Act of 1993 addresses these 


12112 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


June 7, 1993 


June 7, 1993 


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 


12113 


urgent needs, and will result in a bet- 
ter quality of life for all Americans. 

I commend Senators Kennedy and 
Baucus for bringing this important bill 
before the Senate for consideration, 
and urge my colleagues to join me in 
support of the Traumatic Brain Injury 
Act of 1993.» 


NOTICE OF DETERMINATION BY 
THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON 
ETHICS UNDER RULE 35. PARA- 
GRAPH 4, REGARDING EDU- 
CATIONAL TRAVEL 

• Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, it is re- 
quired by paragraph 4 of rule 35 that I 
place in the Congressional Record no- 
tices of Senate employees who partici- 
pate in programs, the principal objec- 
tive